I'm not sure why either, I just get twitchy when I read things like 60% of 3-7 round draft picks do better than 1-2 round draft picks. Yes positional value exists, yes certain positions are 'safer' at the top of the draft than others. But you have more of a guarantee that the guy you pick in rounds 1-2 will do better than a guy picked in rounds 3-7 (kickers excluded.)
hey, this all starts with me saying i'd rather not spend a 1st rd pick on a WR. my reasons: size and speed are over drafted at the position. would you say the adjusted for era #s justify using draft capital on WR in rd 1? when does it make more sense to trade that pick for more picks and draft more than 2 wrs later?
I mean except for everything I've ever studied says theres a correlation between size and speed and receiver success in the NFL...sure...size and speed aren't important. Does that always hold true? Nope...but when you're playing a crap shoot like the draft you try to increase your odds as much as you can. And if you have conviction in a guy...the answer is you never trade back and hope to hit later. Whats the point of trading back if I now have to use two picks to try and hit on a position? If you don't want to spend 1st round picks on a receiver you're going to be passing up a lot of very good players.
Now...that being said, I've long said that teams need to watch film more, and pay less attention to the shorts and shirts olympics that take place in Indiana each year. I think the bigger issue is that teams don't always think about the scheme they are running and whether that players skills will translate to that scheme...or...and even bigger issue in my mind...they won't adjust their scheme to fit that players talents.
hey, this all starts with me saying i'd rather not spend a 1st rd pick on a WR. my reasons: size and speed are over drafted at the position. would you say the adjusted for era #s justify using draft capital on WR in rd 1? when does it make more sense to trade that pick for more picks and draft more than 2 wrs later?
I mean except for everything I've ever studied says theres a correlation between size and speed and receiver success in the NFL...sure...size and speed aren't important. Does that always hold true? Nope...but when you're playing a crap shoot like the draft you try to increase your odds as much as you can. And if you have conviction in a guy...the answer is you never trade back and hope to hit later. Whats the point of trading back if I now have to use two picks to try and hit on a position? If you don't want to spend 1st round picks on a receiver you're going to be passing up a lot of very good players.
Now...that being said, I've long said that teams need to watch film more, and pay less attention to the shorts and shirts olympics that take place in Indiana each year. I think the bigger issue is that teams don't always think about the scheme they are running and whether that players skills will translate to that scheme...or...and even bigger issue in my mind...they won't adjust their scheme to fit that players talents.
or.... they do not have the coaching chops to do so even if they wanted to.
hey, this all starts with me saying i'd rather not spend a 1st rd pick on a WR. my reasons: size and speed are over drafted at the position. would you say the adjusted for era #s justify using draft capital on WR in rd 1? when does it make more sense to trade that pick for more picks and draft more than 2 wrs later?
I mean except for everything I've ever studied says theres a correlation between size and speed and receiver success in the NFL...sure...size and speed aren't important. Does that always hold true? Nope...but when you're playing a crap shoot like the draft you try to increase your odds as much as you can. And if you have conviction in a guy...the answer is you never trade back and hope to hit later. Whats the point of trading back if I now have to use two picks to try and hit on a position? If you don't want to spend 1st round picks on a receiver you're going to be passing up a lot of very good players.
Now...that being said, I've long said that teams need to watch film more, and pay less attention to the shorts and shirts olympics that take place in Indiana each year. I think the bigger issue is that teams don't always think about the scheme they are running and whether that players skills will translate to that scheme...or...and even bigger issue in my mind...they won't adjust their scheme to fit that players talents.
nice straw man. overrated ain't unimportant. about conviction: i agree BUT the problem is where a team's conviction is not related to performance and that a draft pick has value. In other words, adjust your evaluation criteria if your conviction picks are underperforming. Also, don't pair a coaching staff that makes evaluating those picks very difficult with a GM that is going to draft aggressively; favoring conviction over consistency/ value.
if i was trying to make a predictive formula for WR success i'd start with list of productive wrs in nfl. use that list to set a floor for height and speed and pay attention to how i should weight height versus speed (so some multiplier attached to speed; value less than one if i think height is more important) then i would compare college careers of these pro players. i'd divide any metrics i use by games active, and consider reducing value of games where the WR didn't play but was active. Productivity versus higher rated teams probably should be weighted more.
finally, i'd break down thrown to #s by route. when you want to understand game speed/agility thrown to #s should be a more useful than 40#s. when is the WR thrown to, what routes are they running seems more important.
what WR do you want to draft, a guy that is thrown to almost exclusively on Fly patterns playing against slower college teams or a guy that gets targeted on double moves?
notice Cam can run Double Moves. that to me means he has enough agility to beat most corners and create separation, and that's all the speed a WR needs. In routes are another great way to measure a WR route running ability. If you lean into the cut, you will not create as much separation. The best WRs in the game make a living with motion efficient cuts to create separation. These are more important routes than a crossing route. Crossing routes can abuse zones, but are more often just body position games that are generally easier throws for a QB to hit. This is why I'd want TEs to demonstrate they can position properly and run this route effectively.
edit: nevermind, tired of shooting at moving goalposts.
brasil, i brought some of the worst arguments to bear but i don't think moving the goal posts is a fair description. the discussion started because i said i don't like spending a 1st on a wr. thanks for your cogent replies in any case.
I mean except for everything I've ever studied says theres a correlation between size and speed and receiver success in the NFL...sure...size and speed aren't important. Does that always hold true? Nope...but when you're playing a crap shoot like the draft you try to increase your odds as much as you can. And if you have conviction in a guy...the answer is you never trade back and hope to hit later. Whats the point of trading back if I now have to use two picks to try and hit on a position? If you don't want to spend 1st round picks on a receiver you're going to be passing up a lot of very good players.
Now...that being said, I've long said that teams need to watch film more, and pay less attention to the shorts and shirts olympics that take place in Indiana each year. I think the bigger issue is that teams don't always think about the scheme they are running and whether that players skills will translate to that scheme...or...and even bigger issue in my mind...they won't adjust their scheme to fit that players talents.
or.... they do not have the coaching chops to do so even if they wanted to.
I mean except for everything I've ever studied says theres a correlation between size and speed and receiver success in the NFL...sure...size and speed aren't important. Does that always hold true? Nope...but when you're playing a crap shoot like the draft you try to increase your odds as much as you can. And if you have conviction in a guy...the answer is you never trade back and hope to hit later. Whats the point of trading back if I now have to use two picks to try and hit on a position? If you don't want to spend 1st round picks on a receiver you're going to be passing up a lot of very good players.
Now...that being said, I've long said that teams need to watch film more, and pay less attention to the shorts and shirts olympics that take place in Indiana each year. I think the bigger issue is that teams don't always think about the scheme they are running and whether that players skills will translate to that scheme...or...and even bigger issue in my mind...they won't adjust their scheme to fit that players talents.
nice straw man. overrated ain't unimportant. about conviction: i agree BUT the problem is where a team's conviction is not related to performance and that a draft pick has value. In other words, adjust your evaluation criteria if your conviction picks are underperforming. Also, don't pair a coaching staff that makes evaluating those picks very difficult with a GM that is going to draft aggressively; favoring conviction over consistency/ value.
if i was trying to make a predictive formula for WR success i'd start with list of productive wrs in nfl. use that list to set a floor for height and speed and pay attention to how i should weight height versus speed (so some multiplier attached to speed; value less than one if i think height is more important) then i would compare college careers of these pro players. i'd divide any metrics i use by games active, and consider reducing value of games where the WR didn't play but was active. Productivity versus higher rated teams probably should be weighted more.
finally, i'd break down thrown to #s by route. when you want to understand game speed/agility thrown to #s should be a more useful than 40#s. when is the WR thrown to, what routes are they running seems more important.
what WR do you want to draft, a guy that is thrown to almost exclusively on Fly patterns playing against slower college teams or a guy that gets targeted on double moves?
notice Cam can run Double Moves. that to me means he has enough agility to beat most corners and create separation, and that's all the speed a WR needs. In routes are another great way to measure a WR route running ability. If you lean into the cut, you will not create as much separation. The best WRs in the game make a living with motion efficient cuts to create separation. These are more important routes than a crossing route. Crossing routes can abuse zones, but are more often just body position games that are generally easier throws for a QB to hit. This is why I'd want TEs to demonstrate they can position properly and run this route effectively.
Where exactly is the strawman argument? You said size and speed are overrated. I said everything I've studied says the opposite. And if we want to get into the semantics of overrated and unimportant:
o·ver·rate ˌōvərˈrāt/Submit verb past tense: overrated; past participle: overrated have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved. "dismissing the work as pompous and overrated" synonyms: overestimate, overvalue, think too much of, attach too much importance to, praise too highly
You've brought up a large amount of other points now. What exactly do you think scouts look at when they are scouting players? Do you think they just show up at the combine? Further, on the link you posted...I can tell you without a doubt that Chris Hogan and Amari Cooper are more than capable of running double moves, and doing it quite well. So despite them being the "best fly route runners" in the NFL, I'd want them on my team because they can run every route very well. And in the case of Cooper...I'd need to spend a first round pick on him. In the case of Hogan, had he not decided to play lacrosse for 4 years in college instead of football, I would have likely have had to spend a high pick on him as well.
Further, if you look at the list of the best receivers in the game: Antonio Brown: 5'10'' 185 Odell Beckham: 5'11'' 200 Julio Jones: 6'3'' 220 Mike Evans: 6'4'' 230 Jordy Nelson: 6'3'' 215 Michael Thomas: 6'3'' 212 AJ Green: 6'4'' 205 Amari Cooper: 6'1'' 211 Dez Bryant: 6'2'' 220 TY Hilton: 5'10'' 185
Of those guys, 3 of them are below 6 foot tall, and 8 of them were drafted in the first two rounds, 4 them in the top 10.
nice straw man. overrated ain't unimportant. about conviction: i agree BUT the problem is where a team's conviction is not related to performance and that a draft pick has value. In other words, adjust your evaluation criteria if your conviction picks are underperforming. Also, don't pair a coaching staff that makes evaluating those picks very difficult with a GM that is going to draft aggressively; favoring conviction over consistency/ value.
if i was trying to make a predictive formula for WR success i'd start with list of productive wrs in nfl. use that list to set a floor for height and speed and pay attention to how i should weight height versus speed (so some multiplier attached to speed; value less than one if i think height is more important) then i would compare college careers of these pro players. i'd divide any metrics i use by games active, and consider reducing value of games where the WR didn't play but was active. Productivity versus higher rated teams probably should be weighted more.
finally, i'd break down thrown to #s by route. when you want to understand game speed/agility thrown to #s should be a more useful than 40#s. when is the WR thrown to, what routes are they running seems more important.
what WR do you want to draft, a guy that is thrown to almost exclusively on Fly patterns playing against slower college teams or a guy that gets targeted on double moves?
notice Cam can run Double Moves. that to me means he has enough agility to beat most corners and create separation, and that's all the speed a WR needs. In routes are another great way to measure a WR route running ability. If you lean into the cut, you will not create as much separation. The best WRs in the game make a living with motion efficient cuts to create separation. These are more important routes than a crossing route. Crossing routes can abuse zones, but are more often just body position games that are generally easier throws for a QB to hit. This is why I'd want TEs to demonstrate they can position properly and run this route effectively.
Where exactly is the strawman argument? You said size and speed are overrated. I said everything I've studied says the opposite. And if we want to get into the semantics of overrated and unimportant:
o·ver·rate ˌōvərˈrāt/Submit verb past tense: overrated; past participle: overrated have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved. "dismissing the work as pompous and overrated" synonyms: overestimate, overvalue, think too much of, attach too much importance to, praise too highly
You've brought up a large amount of other points now. What exactly do you think scouts look at when they are scouting players? Do you think they just show up at the combine? Further, on the link you posted...I can tell you without a doubt that Chris Hogan and Amari Cooper are more than capable of running double moves, and doing it quite well. So despite them being the "best fly route runners" in the NFL, I'd want them on my team because they can run every route very well. And in the case of Cooper...I'd need to spend a first round pick on him. In the case of Hogan, had he not decided to play lacrosse for 4 years in college instead of football, I would have likely have had to spend a high pick on him as well.
Further, if you look at the list of the best receivers in the game: Antonio Brown: 5'10'' 185 Odell Beckham: 5'11'' 200 Julio Jones: 6'3'' 220 Mike Evans: 6'4'' 230 Jordy Nelson: 6'3'' 215 Michael Thomas: 6'3'' 212 AJ Green: 6'4'' 205 Amari Cooper: 6'1'' 211 Dez Bryant: 6'2'' 220 TY Hilton: 5'10'' 185
Of those guys, 3 of them are below 6 foot tall, and 8 of them were drafted in the first two rounds, 4 them in the top 10.
Hey Butkus, can you check to make sure that list of receivers is accurate? I don't see Wheaton on it.
hey, this all starts with me saying i'd rather not spend a 1st rd pick on a WR. my reasons: size and speed are over drafted at the position. would you say the adjusted for era #s justify using draft capital on WR in rd 1? when does it make more sense to trade that pick for more picks and draft more than 2 wrs later?
I mean except for everything I've ever studied says theres a correlation between size and speed and receiver success in the NFL...sure...size and speed aren't important. Does that always hold true? Nope...but when you're playing a crap shoot like the draft you try to increase your odds as much as you can. And if you have conviction in a guy...the answer is you never trade back and hope to hit later. Whats the point of trading back if I now have to use two picks to try and hit on a position? If you don't want to spend 1st round picks on a receiver you're going to be passing up a lot of very good players.
Now...that being said, I've long said that teams need to watch film more, and pay less attention to the shorts and shirts olympics that take place in Indiana each year. I think the bigger issue is that teams don't always think about the scheme they are running and whether that players skills will translate to that scheme...or...and even bigger issue in my mind...they won't adjust their scheme to fit that players talents.
And therein is the real crux of the problem with most any position drafted. It's not just WRs.
In White's case he shot up the boards when he ran a 4.35 at the combine and at 6'3"/215lbs looked the part of another Julio Jones who could dominate in the NFL. And as I recall there were many who compared him to Jones at that time.
The big difference was Jones was a skilled WR coming into the NFL whereas White was not. He as a JUCO transfer who had one big year at WVU playing a single position and was being used in a very limited fashion. It's obvious we overlooked that little detail or simply believed we could teach him the rest of what he needed to know and we'd have our own Julio Jones.
But injuries aside Kevin White has never been a quick study and seems to lack a top football IQ which only compounded the problems caused by his injuries and his inability to practice and play. All of this has to have gotten into his head so deep I'm convinced we'll never get it out of there and that at least as far as the Bears are concerned he will never even come close to what he was drafted to be.
Maybe he can resurrect his career elsewhere but I think his days here are done even if he can somehow stay healthy and that's totally unproven so far.
White was able to dominate at a college level provided they simplified his tasks. I'm having similar concerns about Shaheen. I realize he played Div II football but he's another guy we need to see show some ability to break out at this level at least in the red zone. Watching his 6'7"/275lbs get stoned at the LOS by a Safety who kept him from getting to a potential TD pass doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about him either and he was a 2nd round pick taken once again based on his athleticism and upside but....is he a good football player?
Given our current state at WR I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this GM and his staff are as bad at choosing WR talent as JA was at stocking and OL and his skills at drafting WRs was nothing to brag on either. I don't care all that much where we draft receiving talent as I do that we actually draft proven talent only and not "over draft" players where we're always dependent on their ascension and their "upside". We've gotten burned so far with White and even Shaheen at TE is beginning to cast some doubts and both were drafted high using similar criteria.
We need to be better at drafting receivers than we have been.
Where exactly is the strawman argument? You said size and speed are overrated. I said everything I've studied says the opposite. And if we want to get into the semantics of overrated and unimportant:
o·ver·rate ˌōvərˈrāt/Submit verb past tense: overrated; past participle: overrated have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved. "dismissing the work as pompous and overrated" synonyms: overestimate, overvalue, think too much of, attach too much importance to, praise too highly
You've brought up a large amount of other points now. What exactly do you think scouts look at when they are scouting players? Do you think they just show up at the combine? Further, on the link you posted...I can tell you without a doubt that Chris Hogan and Amari Cooper are more than capable of running double moves, and doing it quite well. So despite them being the "best fly route runners" in the NFL, I'd want them on my team because they can run every route very well. And in the case of Cooper...I'd need to spend a first round pick on him. In the case of Hogan, had he not decided to play lacrosse for 4 years in college instead of football, I would have likely have had to spend a high pick on him as well.
Further, if you look at the list of the best receivers in the game: Antonio Brown: 5'10'' 185 Odell Beckham: 5'11'' 200 Julio Jones: 6'3'' 220 Mike Evans: 6'4'' 230 Jordy Nelson: 6'3'' 215 Michael Thomas: 6'3'' 212 AJ Green: 6'4'' 205 Amari Cooper: 6'1'' 211 Dez Bryant: 6'2'' 220 TY Hilton: 5'10'' 185
Of those guys, 3 of them are below 6 foot tall, and 8 of them were drafted in the first two rounds, 4 them in the top 10.
Hey Butkus, can you check to make sure that list of receivers is accurate? I don't see Wheaton on it.