Why draft pundits are intellectually dishonest.

[Rally5]

Just looking at the draft list from a statistical perspective it's pretty well known that the success rate from a first-round draft pick is around 45% depending on how you measure of course and which position you're drafting  Yet, when you look at the pundits boards they are basically the same top 20 guys, they just rearrange the order a little to appear to be different when in fact they are all completely incestuous.  So, basically, out of hundreds of pundits out there they all agree on the same top 20, that's statistically impossible especially given the failure rates.  What they are is lazy.  They all look at each others list , copy it, then play the reshuffle the draft order game and act like they are somehow an original thinker. Who's the third round Hall of Famer nobody is talking about that should be a top 10 pick but nobody has the courage to put him there because they may lose credibility.  You mean to tell me nobody is on to all the pro bowlers in the ensuing rounds that should be in the top 20?

 

I found much of this to be true with pro scouts as well.  It's much safer to agree with the pack and be wrong, which means they were all wrong than to be way out there on a guy and be wrong and appear out of touch.  The most recent example of total cowardice is Josh Allen.  Where was everyone all year long on Josh Allen?  I watched a few of his games at Wyoming as wasn't overwhelmed but when a big kid with a big arm shows up at the combine it becomes really easy to advocate for a guy like this because when he fails, it's not the scouts it's the coaches,  It's easy to say "I brought you a 6'6" monster of a QB with a big arm....not my fault you couldn't develop him" hello Jamarcus Russell.  Maybe Allen makes it, I'm not saying he won't but from nowhere to top of the board?  I call nonsense.  When I watch these guys it's Rosen that jumps off the screen to me but I digress...

 

This time of year drives me a little batty just because of all the so-called experts and pundits that are simply bags of air.  I don't know who the next star is going to be, I have my own full-time job, but I also know somebody else isn't doing their full-time job when all the lists are the same just reshuffled.  This is also the time of the year where I take a shot at the intellectual dishonesty that is Best Player Available which can be a tactic but is not a strategy unless you're Ryan Grigson.

 

Rant over...here's to the weekend and please bring us some linemen!

 

[Narcosys]

They aren't projecting who is going to be successful, they are projecting who is picking whom.  They are going of what the scouts are grading and specific needs of teams. 

 

Who would actually guess that Tom Brady should have been the #1 overall pick considering his poor measurables?

[Rally5]

Brady is perhaps too big of a reach in terms of an outlier for this particular argument.  I would say, of course they are predicting success, what else are they doing, predicting failure?  It would be interesting to see how many pundits on draft day nail the fail rate, that would be interesting to see.  We know there will be a ~55% first round failure, I'd like to hear some guys try to get that right, most won't even try.

 

Someone like TY Hilton is a good example of a guy who was clearly a first-round talent but perhaps lacked a certain pedigree so would get ranked well below say a John Ross who garnered a top 10 pick last year after having just one good college season and ran a 4.22 at the combine.  See if you can find any stats for how he did last year, he had more scratches than catches, how do you draft that guy with the ninth pick and how does every pundit have him as a top-three receiver, as just one example?  I'll tell you, because he ran an 4.22.  How does the entire world of draft 'experts' not rank TY as a first rounder, not a single guy?  I think they are lazy sycophants, the lot of them.  The draft world will jump on a Jamarcus Russell and totally miss on Drew Brees.  Like I said this is scouts and pundits,  I've seen it first hand.  I think there's a lot of desperation on the draft day where people fall for things they want to be true and aren't and there's a huge lack of courage as it relates to slotting players or the success rate would be better.

[BlueShoe]

I have had my share of fails, but I have a high percentage of hits too. 

 

It’s all part of it.  

 

Can’t be scared to make a mistake. That would not get anyone very far. 

[BlueShoe]

On 4/23/2018 at 12:46 PM, Rally5 said:

Brady is perhaps too big of a reach in terms of an outlier for this particular argument.  I would say, of course they are predicting success, what else are they doing, predicting failure?  It would be interesting to see how many pundits on draft day nail the fail rate, that would be interesting to see.  We know there will be a ~55% first round failure, I'd like to hear some guys try to get that right, most won't even try.

 

Someone like TY Hilton is a good example of a guy who was clearly a first-round talent but perhaps lacked a certain pedigree so would get ranked well below say a John Ross who garnered a top 10 pick last year after having just one good college season and ran a 4.22 at the combine.  See if you can find any stats for how he did last year, he had more scratches than catches, how do you draft that guy with the ninth pick and how does every pundit have him as a top-three receiver, as just one example?  I'll tell you, because he ran an 4.22.  How does the entire world of draft 'experts' not rank TY as a first rounder, not a single guy?  I think they are lazy sycophants, the lot of them.  The draft world will jump on a Jamarcus Russell and totally miss on Drew Brees.  Like I said this is scouts and pundits,  I've seen it first hand.  I think there's a lot of desperation on the draft day where people fall for things they want to be true and aren't and there's a huge lack of courage as it relates to slotting players or the success rate would be better.

 

USA Today deserves a lot of credit for that sleeper pick. They called it, and none of the teams listened. 

[Yoshinator]

4 hours ago, Rally5 said:

Just looking at the draft list from a statistical perspective it's pretty well known that the success rate from a first-round draft pick is around 45% depending on how you measure of course and which position you're drafting  Yet, when you look at the pundits boards they are basically the same top 20 guys, they just rearrange the order a little to appear to be different when in fact they are all completely incestuous.  So, basically out of hundreds of pundits out there they all agree on the same top 20, that's statistically impossible especially given the failure rates.  What they are is lazy.  They all look at each others list and copy it then do the reshuffle the draft order game and act like they are somehow an original thinker. Who's the third round Hall of Famer nobody is talking about that should be a top 10 pick but nobody has the courage to put him there because they may lose credibility.  You mean to tell me nobody is on to all the pro bowlers in the ensuing rounds that should be in the top 20?

 

I found much of this to be true with pro scouts as well.  It's much safer to agree with the pack and be wrong, which means they were all wrong than to be way out there on a guy and be wrong and appear out of touch.  The most recent example of total cowardice is Josh Allen.  Where was everyone all year long on Josh Allen?  I watched a few of his games at Wyoming as wasn't overwhelmed but when a big kid with a big arm shows up at the combine it becomes really easy to advocate for a guy like this because when he fails, it's not the scouts it's the coaches,  It's easy to say "I brought you a 6'6" monster of a QB with a big arm....not my fault you couldn't develop him" hello Jamarcus Russell.  Maybe Allen makes it, I'm not saying he won't but from nowhere to top of the board?  I call nonsense.  When I watch these guys it's Rosen that jumps off the screen to me but I digress...

 

This time of year drives me a little batty just because of all the so-called experts and pundits that are simply bags of air.  I don't know who the next star is going to be, I have my own full-time job, but I also know somebody else isn't doing their full-time job when all the lists are the same just reshuffled.  This is also the time of the year where I take a shot of the intellectual dishonesty that is Best Player Available which can be a tactic but is not a strategy unless you're Ryan Grigson.

 

Rant over...here's to the weekend and please bring us some linemen!

Thank you so much for this thread! Best thread all draft season! You never see a draft pundit come out and say, "player x in the top ten will be a bust because of y reason". No, they tout every player in the 1st round and act like they will all be hits. It's sickening. I think Rosen and Barkley will be the early round busts, I'll say it, and I'm not afraid to explain why to anyone who wants to hear it. That should be respected, because you're doing your job, and putting yourself on the line, trusting your scouting and your skills. These people are pathetic that make their "top 5" at every position, and it's the same top 5 in a different order as another guy. I want to see someone go bold and say a top player is a bust based on valid logic and get it right. That's how you gain credibility in my eyes. Great thread!

[throwing BBZ]

Gee, i thought there were typically 15-18 sure 1st round picks each draft.
Why those guys are rated such is made understandable if one reads widely on them.
 This draft, i have read from several sources that what is usually picks 20-40 having much the same grade that number is more like 20-65.
 So your point is bogus. JMO

[Luck 4 president]

There’s a difference between all these “NFL Experts” and pro scouts/GMs. These “experts” are not good talent evaluators like you said and just copy each other. Good pro scouts won’t even look at these mock drafts and make their own boards based off thousands of hours of film and scouting. 

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Thank you so much for this thread! Best thread all draft season! You never see a draft pundit come out and say, "player x in the top ten will be a bust because of y reason". No, they tout every player in the 1st round and act like they will all be hits. It's sickening. I think Rosen and Barkley will be the early round busts, I'll say it, and I'm not afraid to explain why to anyone who wants to hear it. That should be respected, because you're doing your job, and putting yourself on the line, trusting your scouting and your skills. These people are pathetic that make their "top 5" at every position, and it's the same top 5 in a different order as another guy. I want to see someone go bold and say a top player is a bust based on valid logic and get it right. That's how you gain credibility in my eyes. Great thread!

 

?? Check PFF, check CBS, check FOX, check any NFL network "pundit", each will have their favourites and also players who they devalue for whatever reason. They DO say they dont like X but they I like Y.

 

Why most draft boards are almost identical? Because there's much more information available nowadays than 10-15 years ago. Hundreds of former NFL coaches, analysts, etc work for the media - national or local, TV, radio or internet - who know the whole process from the inside. They were part of it (some of them still part of it), they know how it works. Plus, analytical tools became soo important (and successfull) recently, that you don't even need to know team's boards, it's enough to (more or less) know the analitical process, the data they collect, and you can pretty much build the board for yourself. Of course if only one guy knew  the process and had the data, then there would be a big margin for error. One guy can make big mistakes. But if there are hundreds out there who have the same data and more or less all know the analytical process, the margin for error reduces dramatically. You can't blame those "pundits", when the real NFL draft seemingly "copies" their boards. It does. Take any mock board and you can bet on that 25+ players will be drafted in the first round as they projected. Does this mean that these guys are geniuses. Hell no. They have just 1000 times more data to work with than 15 years ago. Making a more or less correct big board is a piece of cake nowadays. Every one of us could do it, and make it 90% correct.

 

I agree though, that the more information are available, the less fun / interesting mock drafts will become. If you KNOW that these 25+ players will be picked in the first round - and that's the case nowadays - what can you write about? You put them in order and try to find a sane reasoning why that particular order makes sense. Then you repeat it next week and call it 2.0, then next week calling it 3.0. It's painful to write, and boring to read.

 

[IrishColt]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I think Rosen and Barkley will be the early round busts, I'll say it, and I'm not afraid to explain why to anyone who wants to hear it

I'm not doubting your opinion, just curious as to why you think Barkley will be a bust? I think his instincts and athleticism coupled with his big game performances freshman through senior would give him ample opportunity to successfully step up to NFL level

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, IrishColt said:

I'm not doubting your opinion, just curious as to why you think Barkley will be a bust? I think his instincts and athleticism coupled with his big game performances freshman through senior would give him ample opportunity to successfully step up to NFL level

 

I'm definitely doubting that opinion, but I'm also curious, why would Barkley bust? @Jared Cisneros

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, IrishColt said:

I'm not doubting your opinion, just curious as to why you think Barkley will be a bust? I think his instincts and athleticism coupled with his big game performances freshman through senior would give him ample opportunity to successfully step up to NFL level

I will explain. His yards after contact is absolutely terrible. When he can't find a wide open lane, he is very easy to take down. Wide open lanes will be much harder to come by in the pros than college, and I think he will be more like Trent Richardson than any elite back in the last few years.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I'm definitely doubting that opinion, but I'm also curious, why would Barkley bust? @Jared Cisneros

Barkley's yards after contact is horrible, and wide open lanes are very difficult to come across in the NFL. Especially if he gets drafted to a team with a poor O-Line. A player like Rashaad penny who thrives in that area will be much better IMO.

[IrishColt]

10 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Barkley's yards after contact is horrible, and wide open lanes are very difficult to come across in the NFL. Especially if he gets drafted to a team with a poor O-Line. A player like Rashaad penny who thrives in that area will be much better IMO.

Interesting, thanks!

[Yoshinator]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I'm definitely doubting that opinion, but I'm also curious, why would Barkley bust? @Jared Cisneros

Also, you didn't respond to my answer (you respond when you think someone's wrong and just stop responding when someone makes a good point. You have a problem with admitting you may be wrong). So if you're doubting my opinion that Barkley may be a bust, who is going to be a bust early? If you're saying nobody, you're full of it. Show some balls and put yourself on the line. Who will be a bust in the early 1st and why? You have 4 to 5 chances most likely of getting it on the nose.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Barkley's yards after contact is horrible, and wide open lanes are very difficult to come across in the NFL. Especially if he gets drafted to a team with a poor O-Line. A player like Rashaad penny who thrives in that area will be much better IMO.

 

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Also, you didn't respond to my answer (you respond when you think someone's wrong and just stop responding when someone makes a good point. You have a problem with admitting you may be wrong). So if you're doubting my opinion that Barkley may be a bust, who is going to be a bust early? If you're saying nobody, you're full of it. Show some balls and put yourself on the line. Who will be a bust in the early 1st and why? You have 4 to 5 chances most likely of getting it on the nose.

 

???

 

Just because I didn't respond immediately doesn't mean I'm not going to respond. It's still the middle of the work day for me. 

 

First, I disagree. I've given plenty of thoughts on Barkley already, and I didn't really want to sidebar this thread with a(nother) discussion of one of the most-discussed players on this site. But yes, I disagree. I don't see Barkley as a player that struggles after contact, I see him as a player who faced a lot of defenders behind the line of scrimmage, which creates an abnormality in his YAC numbers. But, I've said before, he's not someone who will grind out tough yardage between the tackles 20 times a game. He looks for the big play and reverses field more than he should, which is going to be problematic in the NFL. 

 

Second, I think this whole 'project a bust now or you're a loser' bait trap is pretty ridiculous. As has been said ad nauseum, about half of first rounders wind up being disappointments. I have a 50% chance of just naming someone and being right. BFD, that's not interesting to me.

 

When I look at draft prospects I do want to get a feel for a player's ceiling and his floor to determine how safe/risky he is, and whether that risk tempers my excitement for the player. 

 

So, for instance, Quenton Nelson is the safest player in the draft, IMO. Take out the QBs (every QB in this group has significant bust potential), and of the top 8-10 guys, I think Edmunds is the riskiest. I think on the wrong team, Fitzpatrick could have a rough transition. Vita Vea is overrated.

 

And outside of the QBs and top 8-10, I think Christian Kirk is the best receiver in this draft. 

[Rally5]

2 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

There’s a difference between all these “NFL Experts” and pro scouts/GMs. These “experts” are not good talent evaluators like you said and just copy each other. Good pro scouts won’t even look at these mock drafts and make their own boards based off thousands of hours of film and scouting. 

There is a difference I will grant you that but scouts worry more about making the big mistake than making the huge find.  You have to essentially win your argument in a room full of peers and your boss so it's typically 'versus' taking another person so to be wrong is bad news for a scout.  The paycheck continuation plan typically is the path of least resistance which is based mainly in simple measurables like, size, speed, and strength.  These matter but there's so much more to players who defy these measurable all over the league, they just don't get first-round billing and should....think Antonio Brown.  

[Yoshinator]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

???

 

Just because I didn't respond immediately doesn't mean I'm not going to respond. It's still the middle of the work day for me. 

 

First, I disagree. I've given plenty of thoughts on Barkley already, and I didn't really want to sidebar this thread with a(nother) discussion of one of the most-discussed players on this site. But yes, I disagree. I don't see Barkley as a player that struggles after contact, I see him as a player who faced a lot of defenders behind the line of scrimmage, which creates an abnormality in his YAC numbers. But, I've said before, he's not someone who will grind out tough yardage between the tackles 20 times a game. He looks for the big play and reverses field more than he should, which is going to be problematic in the NFL. 

 

Second, I think this whole 'project a bust now or you're a loser' bait trap is pretty ridiculous. As has been said ad nauseum, about half of first rounders wind up being disappointments. I have a 50% chance of just naming someone and being right. BFD, that's not interesting to me.

 

When I look at draft prospects I do want to get a feel for a player's ceiling and his floor to determine how safe/risky he is, and whether that risk tempers my excitement for the player. 

 

So, for instance, Quenton Nelson is the safest player in the draft, IMO. Take out the QBs (every QB in this group has significant bust potential), and of the top 8-10 guys, I think Edmunds is the riskiest. I think on the wrong team, Fitzpatrick could have a rough transition. Vita Vea is overrated.

 

And outside of the QBs and top 8-10, I think Christian Kirk is the best receiver in this draft. 

I don't want you to just name someone and try to be right. I want you to name someone you think will bust (since you think it won't be Barkley, name your guy), and explain your reasoning. Put your knowledge Vs mine. People seem to worship you on this site, lets see if you're smarter than me about the draft. Then people can judge your reasoning with your guy against my reasoning with mine. If you doubt my guy, then I expect you to have someone in mind yourself to counter me.

[OffensivelyPC]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

So, for instance, Quenton Nelson is the safest player in the draft, IMO. Take out the QBs (every QB in this group has significant bust potential), and of the top 8-10 guys, I think Edmunds is the riskiest. I think on the wrong team, Fitzpatrick could have a rough transition. Vita Vea is overrated.

 

And outside of the QBs and top 8-10, I think Christian Kirk is the best receiver in this draft. 

What makes you think Edmunds is the riskiest? I think I know what you're going to say, but asking just the same.

[Rally5]

3 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

Gee, i thought there were typically 15-18 sure 1st round picks each draft.
Why those guys are rated such is made understandable if one reads widely on them.
 This draft, i have read from several sources that what is usually picks 20-40 having much the same grade that number is more like 20-65.
 So your point is bogus. JMO

Gee, thanks.  So if I read on them more widely there will be a better than 45% success rate? Can you imagine another industry where you hire multi-millionaires at a 45% success rate, that's the fast path to unemployment! Are you then saying there no difference between number 5 and number 65 (except for millions of dollars)?  I have a feeling I will likely regret this particular engagement...

[Yoshinator]

5 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

What makes you think Edmunds is the riskiest? I think I know what you're going to say, but asking just the same.

Edmunds is risky for us specifically. I 100% agree with Superman here. In a 3-4 defense, he will absolutely dominate. In a 4-3 that we are switching too, he will struggle. It's all about scheme fit with him.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't want you to just name someone and try to be right. I want you to name someone you think will bust (since you think it won't be Barkley, name your guy), and explain your reasoning. Put your knowledge Vs mine. People seem to worship you on this site, lets see if you're smarter than me about the draft. Then people can judge your reasoning with your guy against my reasoning with mine. If you doubt my guy, then I expect you to have someone in mind yourself to counter me.

 

:: sighs :: 

 

There's plenty I'm wrong about. Just look at my posts from previous years. I bet there are several prospects that we disagreed on, and you were right and I was wrong. Use all those times to proclaim that you're smarter than me. Or any of the other topics we've disagreed on, where you were right and I was wrong. I'm sure they exist.

 

But what I don't think I've ever done -- and I bet a search would prove it -- is declare a player will be a bust before he's even played. That's not my game. 

 

So whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, if it involves me naming a bust, it's not gonna happen. You'll have to take comfort in me saying Barkley won't be a bust. 

[Rally5]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

:: sighs :: 

 

There's plenty I'm wrong about. Just look at my posts from previous years. I bet there are several prospects that we disagreed on, and you were right and I was wrong. Use all those times to proclaim that you're smarter than me. Or any of the other topics we've disagreed on, where you were right and I was wrong. I'm sure they exist.

 

But what I don't think I've ever done -- and I bet a search would prove it -- is declare a player will be a bust before he's even played. That's not my game. 

 

So whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, if it involves me naming a bust, it's not gonna happen. You'll have to take comfort in me saying Barkley won't be a bust. 

Barkley has a lot of Reggie Bush about him.  I wouldn't spend a first on him (I know you weren't talking to me but I am rudely butting in) and I don't like the risk of a RB in R1.  I also think RB's are easy to find relative to other positions, pass rusher, OT, QB, so my great hope is we stay away from RB, that's not taking away from Barkley but I wouldn't touch him early.  Sorry for the intrusion...

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

:: sighs :: 

 

There's plenty I'm wrong about. Just look at my posts from previous years. I bet there are several prospects that we disagreed on, and you were right and I was wrong. Use all those times to proclaim that you're smarter than me. Or any of the other topics we've disagreed on, where you were right and I was wrong. I'm sure they exist.

 

But what I don't think I've ever done -- and I bet a search would prove it -- is declare a player will be a bust before he's even played. That's not my game. 

 

So whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, if it involves me naming a bust, it's not gonna happen. You'll have to take comfort in me saying Barkley won't be a bust. 

Then it comes down to the fear of being wrong, or something else like you aren't confident in your scouting skills. This is just for fun Superman, I'm not going to hold it over your head for years. You have already admitted 50% of 1st rounders bust. I'm not asking you to predict something real bold just to try and get lucky. You doubted my opinion, so I want to hear your knowledge. I can learn something from you, I don't have an ego. Don't have an ego back because you are afraid of being wrong. Trust your gut and name someone that you're sure of and explain why. It'll be fun to see if either of us is right.

[Rally5]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Then it comes down to the fear of being wrong, or something else like you aren't confident in your scouting skills. This is just for fun Superman, I'm not going to hold it over your head for years. You have already admitted 50% of 1st rounders bust. I'm not asking you to predict something real bold just to try and get lucky. You doubted my opinion, so I want to hear your knowledge. I can learn something from you, I don't have an ego. Don't have an ego back because you are afraid of being wrong. Trust your gut and name someone that you're sure of and explain why. It'll be fun to see if either of us is right.

Josh Allen.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

Josh Allen.

I love Allen, but I agree that he is the most likely to bust. He does have the highest ceiling though of not only any QB, but any player in the draft. We'll have to see which team drafts him and what situation he's in.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

What makes you think Edmunds is the riskiest? I think I know what you're going to say, but asking just the same.

 

I'm concerned about several things with Edmunds.

 

He's caught between positions. I'm not sure where his best position is in the NFL, whether it's off ball linebacker or edge rusher. And if I want him off the ball, do I want him on the strong side where his size and length are an advantage? The problem with that is he isn't a disciplined player (which isn't surprising, he's young and inexperienced), and discipline is paramount on the strong side. If you want him on the edge, he has shown basically nothing as a pass rusher (not blitzer, pass rusher).

 

He has speed, range and good ability in space, but his eyes fail him often enough that he winds up in the wrong place, chases on ball fakes and gets taken out of position, etc. This happens against rudimentary college offenses with below average QBs. Imagine him trying to read Mariota play fake, trying to defend a triangle formation against the Patriots, or picking up a RB running an NFL-caliber option route over the middle?

 

And he makes a lot of plays with his physical talents, but he's not skilled with his hands, he doesn't understand how to use his length, he takes false steps and winds up behind the ball carrier (where he can lay his 6'5" frame out and still get an ankle tackle against ACC competition, but that won't work every Sunday). 

 

To me, the projection of Edmunds as a good NFL player relies on a lot of assumptions. Take out the normal stuff, like him staying healthy and getting coached up, because that's true of every player. In his case, you have to assume that he learns how to use his size and play with proper leverage against talented blockers; that he can train his eyes to diagnose quickly without being manipulated by fakes and misdirection; that his body is mostly developed and he'll be at his best in the 250s, not the 270s, where playing off the ball would make little sense... etc. 

 

I feel like he is an excellent case of people falling in love with his potential, and assuming that all of the question marks will wind up being check marks. 

[buccolts]

3

More

Days

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

Barkley has a lot of Reggie Bush about him.  I wouldn't spend a first on him (I know you weren't talking to me but I am rudely butting in) and I don't like the risk of a RB in R1.  I also think RB's are easy to find relative to other positions, pass rusher, OT, QB, so my great hope is we stay away from RB, that's not taking away from Barkley but I wouldn't touch him early.  Sorry for the intrusion...

 

I've spent more time than I can remember arguing against taking a RB in the first, especially at the top of the first. But that's about positional value and longevity, not because I'm afraid of Barkley.

 

He does sometimes play like Reggie Bush, but a) I don't think Bush was a bust, and b) Barkley is considerably bigger and stronger than Reggie, but basically just as explosive. Bush was more of a change back / hybrid receiver, and while Barkley can be that, at 233 pounds, he can also be a between the tackles runner, if he stays with the design of the play, rather than bouncing. 

[Rally5]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

I love Allen, but I agree that he is the most likely to bust. He does have the highest ceiling though of not only any QB, but any player in the draft. We'll have to see which team drafts him and what situation he's in.

Measurables aside, this guy should have lit up the Mountian West, I didn't necessarily see him do that in the very few games I watched.  I think he ranked seventh in the mountain west statistically.  I also saw a one read guy which is deadly.  I look for three things in a NFL QB from college games:  First, does he deliver the mail from the pocket? Two, can he complete passes to covered receivers or better said tight and/or non-existent windows, and three does he go through progressions without panic.  I didn't see this in him when I watched his games.  Now, big dude, big arm, looks really good in a uniform.  I think Allen would be best served with the Giants and sit behind Manning for two/three years and learn the finer points of the position.  People think this guy is Carson Wentz, I don't see it other than they are both tall.  That's why I like Rosen, he can spin it, BUT, word is he a bad leader, maybe he matures.

[Rally5]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I've spent more time than I can remember arguing against taking a RB in the first, especially at the top of the first. But that's about positional value and longevity, not because I'm afraid of Barkley.

 

He does sometimes play like Reggie Bush, but a) I don't think Bush was a bust, and b) Barkley is considerably bigger and stronger than Reggie, but basically just as explosive. Bush was more of a change back / hybrid receiver, and while Barkley can be that, at 233 pounds, he can also be a between the tackles runner, if he stays with the design of the play, rather than bouncing. 

Agreed, I don't think Reggie was a bust, but he wasn't a number one either.  That's how I see Barkley.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Rally5 said:

Measurables aside, this guy should have lit up the Mountian West, I didn't necessarily see him do that in the very few games I watched.  I think he ranked seventh in the mountain west statistically.  I also saw a one read guy which is deadly.  I look for three things in a NFL QB from college games:  First, does he deliver the mail from the pocket? Two, can he complete passes to covered receivers or better said tight and/or non-existent windows, and three does he go through progressions without panic.  I didn't see this in him when I watched his games.  Now, big dude, big arm, looks really good in a uniform.  I think Allen would be best served with the Giants and sit behind Manning for two/three years and learn the finer points of the position.  People think this guy is Carson Wentz, I don't see it other than they are both tall.  That's why I like Rosen, he can spin it, BUT, word is he a bad leader, maybe he matures.

My only fault with Allen is his accuracy. He's like the WWE Wrestler who has all the measurables except the in-ring performance down. If he becomes more accurate, he can be a top 5 QB potentially. If not, he'll bust. Simple as that. Rosen has a lot of minor stuff wrong with him, but it can be improved. It's going to be up to hard work to see who succeeds and who fails between the two. I guess it's what do you want to take a chance on, a high ceiling guy who needs work in one area, or a high floor guy ready for the NFL that will probably be average to above average in all areas?

[Rally5]

1 minute ago, Jared Cisneros said:

My only fault with Allen is his accuracy. He's like the WWE Wrestler who has all the measurables except the in-ring performance down. If he becomes more accurate, he can be a top 5 QB potentially. If not, he'll bust. Simple as that. Rosen has a lot of minor stuff wrong with him, but it can be improved. It's going to be up to hard work to see who succeeds and who fails between the two. I guess it's what do you want to take a chance on, a high ceiling guy who needs work in one area, or a high floor guy ready for the NFL that will probably be average to above average in all areas?

Fair enough.

[Cynjin]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Also, you didn't respond to my answer (you respond when you think someone's wrong and just stop responding when someone makes a good point. You have a problem with admitting you may be wrong). So if you're doubting my opinion that Barkley may be a bust, who is going to be a bust early? If you're saying nobody, you're full of it. Show some balls and put yourself on the line. Who will be a bust in the early 1st and why? You have 4 to 5 chances most likely of getting it on the nose.

 

Good Lord, smh.

[Fisticuffs111]

26 minutes ago, Superman said:

I feel like he is an excellent case of people falling in love with his potential, and assuming that all of the question marks will wind up being check marks. 

It does seem like some just assume he's going to hit his ceiling and get all the negatives coached out of him. I know Eberflus has done a good job building up LBers in the past, but not every player that comes into the league fixes their weaknesses, no matter how good the coach is. Not to mention I don't think it's as easy to coach up instincts as much as others do.

I worry that he'd get absolutely toyed with in the play action/RPO game, and like you mentioned, that size/athleticism won't allow him to make those mistakes like it did in CFB. I get the appeal when honing in on the upside, but the other side is really worrisome to me.

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Then it comes down to the fear of being wrong, or something else like you aren't confident in your scouting skills. This is just for fun Superman, I'm not going to hold it over your head for years. You have already admitted 50% of 1st rounders bust. I'm not asking you to predict something real bold just to try and get lucky. You doubted my opinion, so I want to hear your knowledge. I can learn something from you, I don't have an ego. Don't have an ego back because you are afraid of being wrong. Trust your gut and name someone that you're sure of and explain why. It'll be fun to see if either of us is right.

 

I've been on this site for a long time, and I have a lot of posts. Over that time, and in those posts, I've stated a lot of opinions. I've been wrong a lot. Given the fact that I've been around a long time and have made a lot of opinionated posts, I've probably been wrong as much as anyone on this site.

 

Why would I be afraid of being wrong now?

 

And if I was, why wouldn't that fear of being wrong keep me from saying that I don't think Barkley will be a bust? If the bust rate in the first round is 50%, then it's no safer to say a player won't be a bust than it is to say he will be a bust. 

 

Also, there are studies that suggest that first round RBs bust more often than any other position over the last decade or so. So again, me saying that I don't think Barkley will be a bust is just as risky as you saying he will be. It's just not as attention grabbing, since consensus is that Barkley is the best player in the draft. 

 

End of the day, like I said, I don't go around predicting that players will bust, even when a player doesn't excite me. I never have. I'm not going to start just because you think you're calling me out.

[Cynjin]

58 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I don't want you to just name someone and try to be right. I want you to name someone you think will bust (since you think it won't be Barkley, name your guy), and explain your reasoning. Put your knowledge Vs mine. People seem to worship you on this site, lets see if you're smarter than me about the draft. Then people can judge your reasoning with your guy against my reasoning with mine. If you doubt my guy, then I expect you to have someone in mind yourself to counter me.

 

38 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Then it comes down to the fear of being wrong, or something else like you aren't confident in your scouting skills. This is just for fun Superman, I'm not going to hold it over your head for years. You have already admitted 50% of 1st rounders bust. I'm not asking you to predict something real bold just to try and get lucky. You doubted my opinion, so I want to hear your knowledge. I can learn something from you, I don't have an ego. Don't have an ego back because you are afraid of being wrong. Trust your gut and name someone that you're sure of and explain why. It'll be fun to see if either of us is right.

 

Unbelievable.

[southwest1]

4 hours ago, Luck 4 president said:

Good pro scouts won’t even look at these mock drafts and make their own boards based off thousands of hours of film and scouting. 

I do wonder on shows like NFL LIVE & NFL Total Access how many paid employees on the payroll have any scouting experience vs just being former players. I realize some will disclose on air which front office they used to work for publicly. However, the weird thing about talent evaluating seems to be the less you played the better are you tend to be at it. Seems like it would be the other way around, but it's not. 

[Rally5]

20 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

My only fault with Allen is his accuracy. He's like the WWE Wrestler who has all the measurables except the in-ring performance down. If he becomes more accurate, he can be a top 5 QB potentially. If not, he'll bust. Simple as that. Rosen has a lot of minor stuff wrong with him, but it can be improved. It's going to be up to hard work to see who succeeds and who fails between the two. I guess it's what do you want to take a chance on, a high ceiling guy who needs work in one area, or a high floor guy ready for the NFL that will probably be average to above average in all areas?

I value tape over measurables and to be honest, I'm not watching tape on the guy, what I did do is watch about three games last year and he wasn't on any radar at that time.  He was just ok, I was debating whether he could even be considered an NFL guy now he's top 5?  He is interesting but how do you not own the Mountian West? How are you throwing for under 2K yrds...fine coaching maybe but I'm suspect.  I also noted my concerns for the guy earlier, don't hate him, just no way would I take him before the third round.  If measurables made the man then Zach banner would be our right tackle. 

[Shive]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

These people are pathetic that make their "top 5" at every position, and it's the same top 5 in a different order as another guy. I want to see someone go bold and say a top player is a bust based on valid logic and get it right. That's how you gain credibility in my eyes. Great thread!

People have gone crazy over the PFF Mock Draft, because they see names that they don't typically see highly rated getting drafted high. This breaks from the norm of what the other pundits say and immediately people just write them off. They use both the tape and the advanced statistics in their prospect evaluations, which gives them way more to work with than most "draft experts".

 

2 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Barkley's yards after contact is horrible, and wide open lanes are very difficult to come across in the NFL. Especially if he gets drafted to a team with a poor O-Line. A player like Rashaad penny who thrives in that area will be much better IMO.

As Superman said, Barkley's yards after contact is very skewed comparatively, because his OL was so atrocious and he was often hit in the backfield as he was taking the handoff. Statistics can be very misleading when you're looking at then without context. That's one thing I love about PFF is that they take those basic stats and try to provide context. They look at yards after contact, but split it into the runs where it's the RB's fault and runs where it's the OL's fault. This gives context to Barkley's poor yards after contact.

 

Continuing my initial portion, while I may not always agree with PFF's evaluations to a T, I appreciate that they can give me concrete reasoning why they feel the way they do about a prospect and that they aren't afraid of making unpopular projections.