Why draft pundits are intellectually dishonest.

[southwest1]

2 hours 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.

Your direct approach always makes me laugh man. Here's hoping I never irritate you JC. I get what you were driving at. You just wanted a window into how Superman breaks draft prospects down & what his measuring stick for success or failure is. I get it. 

1 hour 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. 

Superman, you always have the cool, calm, & collected approach. I admire that too. 

 

Look, I respect both of you gentlemen & at 1 point, I wanted Barkley bad myself. Not so much anymore given our need for pass rushers. 

 

Keep being direct JC. I know you face flack for it sometimes, but I like it & Supes I'm amazed how you never get upset & never take anything personally under fire. 

[OffensivelyPC]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

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. 

In a nushell, I thought you would say this, but not to the nuanced degree you did...to the point it gives me pause.

 

He does have incredible attributes, and I still think his issues are coachable, or at least "more easily" coachable. But you could probably count me in the group that assumed question marks would end up being check marks. To some extent, I still think thats true - learning to use his length because he is only 19 and is still early in that process, for instance. 

 

Where I really do agree with you is his diagnosis - he reacts before fully diagnosing, taking himself out of the play at times. I still think thats a function of being young and still developing,  and in a naturally developmental fashion. Still, doesnt mean he wont develop as hoped for.

 

At the end of the day, I see an extremely high ceiling player who is pro bowl caliber regardless of scheme. What are his strengths, and can they work for us? I think, but Im not sure how strongly, that he will overcome those issues. I still like his projection which bring me back to our point of contention,  he is a player I think can work past his issues on the tape. We shall see, but his upside is better than, say, Roquan Smith. And  like that prospect more than other ILBs. Good luck to him. If we took him, I would find it hard to disagree with the pick.

[James]

6 hours 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.

 

Superman seem vastly smarter than you. You seem to have an inferiority complex which becomes evident every now and then. I see you often and explicitly mentioning how you want to take on users. It's like the kid who always dares other to punch him, picking fights; ""Come one. Punch me. Do it."  etc. We get it. You want to argue. Then just do it. Do that. Stop baiting like you do above, and bait the proper way if you're going to do that.

Expect this board to mostly side with Superman though. Accept it, and you're going to save yourself a lot of heartache.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, James said:

 

Superman seem vastly smarter than you. You seem to have an inferiority complex which becomes evident every now and then. I see you often and explicitly mentioning how you want to take on users. 

Expect this board to mostly side with Superman. Accept it, and you're going to save yourself a lot of heartache.

Superman has an ego problem. He bases everything he writes on being 100% correct that he can prove with links to show his work. So when I asked him to do something where he couldn't show a link to prove his work and he'd have to rely on his own judgment and skills to be smarter than me, he backed out.

 

I put myself on the line by saying Barkley was a bust and Superman criticized me. The least he can do is put himself in that same situation if he disagrees with me so I can agree or criticize him. However, he won't do it because if he gets criticized, he can't show some link that proves what he is saying is 100% correct. I could potentially be right and he could be potentially wrong, and in his world, that can't exist.

 

He's like the fake gambler who always wins, but is playing the rigged game that allows him to win, and he gains a God-Like status around here because of it. I'm making myself vulnerable by putting myself on the line with the "Barkley is a bust" narrative and I explain why. Superman can dish it out and criticize, but he can't take it by giving his own example and making himself vulnerable to criticism. That's not being smarter, that's being a coward that runs away, and that's exactly what Superman is when I asked him to prove his smarts. All I wanted was a fun competition, and he is scared that he could get some criticism that he can't shut down with a link and he may be wrong, which hurts the illusion that he's a brilliant person above everyone else on this forum.

 

[NewColtsFan]

15 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 , 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!

 

 

I call nonsense on this.....

 

All the pundits do not all agree on anything.   

 

Second,  the only pundits that come close to agreeing on anythig are the top guys.    The guys at ESPN,  NFL Network and a select few other places.    And they're not being lazy.   The cream rises to the top and separates from everything else.    The fact they're wrong is common in the personnel business.    Theere are too many variables to know for sure who is going to make it and who isn't.

 

But all the other websites look totally different...    right up until about April.   Then they look around and see how ridiculous things are and they want some credibility and they make enough changes to try and look like they know what they're talking about.

 

Remember,  mocks are viewed as click bait on the internet.    So everyone and their mother does mock draft to try and attract eye balls.     Heck, my mother has been dead for nearly 30 years and she does mock drafts out of Heaven.    (At least,  I think it's Heaven!)  

 

Like the mock draft websites that many posters from here love to play.   And they think they're close to reality when in fact they're not.    The guys who run these sites are not personnel people.   They could barely distinguis Josh Rosen from Josh Allen.      But once you get past the first round you get more and more and more wrong names in the wrong rounds.      It's not until about now that they figure out who should go where. 

 

This year there is a modest amount of agreement on the top-20.   After that,  there's a lot of difference of opinion.   You view a lack of differing opinions on things like laziess.   That just means you don't understand how scouting works.    The best propsects should be obvious to any good scout.   Seeing the wrong names at the top is not a good thing.   In most cases,  it's a sign of people who don't know what they're doing.  Like about 5 years ago when in December of a college football season (bowl season)  CBS Sports had Syracuse QB Ryan Nassib rated as the number one player in the entire upcoming draft.    Not jus the top QB, the top PLAYER overall.    Nassib wound up going in the 4th round.   So, was CBS Sports intellectually honest for being different?     Or were they just clueless and didn't know it until they had made fools of themselves? 

 

Within the leading websites, nobody is "intellectually dishonest."      You see,  the people who do these mocks,  do them for a living.  They draw a paycheck for their work.   Get enough wrong and people stop paying attention to you.    It's not like here where people post their views and they're way, way off,  and they're not held accountable.    People here have a day job where they make their money.    This is just a hobby for all of us     Big, big difference.

 

If there is "dishonesty" its in the lesser websites who are just trying to cash in on the popularity of doing mock drafts.    These people don't know what they're doing and it shows all draft season long.    And then at the end they scramble trying to make things right.    There's a raeson why I try not to pay attention to them.

 

[crazycolt1]

What I think is there are a few who take this drafting way too serious.

We all can see a players name and go look at what tape of them is available and draw our own conclusions.

What we don't have is the ability to look deeper into these players careers like the scouting crews do. They are privy to so much more information than the fans. It is their full time jobs where most of us really don't spent that much time scouting these players. We are realistically talking about 400 plus players when you add in the players who are not expected to be drafted. None of us have the time or resources to do in depth scouting like a whole scouting crew does.

A GM and their crews big boards do not look like the boards we or the so called experts make up.

Mock drafts are fun but fans pick players who either they are familiar with or the attention the media gives them. That's not how a GM or his crew put a big board together.

[OffensivelyPC]

23 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 , 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!

 

Say what you will about sites like PFF and Walter Football, other people around here blast them all the time.  But they at least show different thinking.  It's not always popular because it doesn't align with the nfl.com's and cbssports.com's and espn.com's. But they are different and think for themselves and there's something to say for that.  If they're wrong, then so be it, but at least you'll get something different, for better or worse.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Superman has an ego problem. He bases everything he writes on being 100% correct that he can prove with links to show his work. So when I asked him to do something where he couldn't show a link to prove his work and he'd have to rely on his own judgment and skills to be smarter than me, he backed out.

 

I put myself on the line by saying Barkley was a bust and Superman criticized me. The least he can do is put himself in that same situation if he disagrees with me so I can agree or criticize him. However, he won't do it because if he gets criticized, he can't show some link that proves what he is saying is 100% correct. I could potentially be right and he could be potentially wrong, and in his world, that can't exist.

 

He's like the fake gambler who always wins, but is playing the rigged game that allows him to win, and he gains a God-Like status around here because of it. I'm making myself vulnerable by putting myself on the line with the "Barkley is a bust" narrative and I explain why. Superman can dish it out and criticize, but he can't take it by giving his own example and making himself vulnerable to criticism. That's not being smarter, that's being a coward that runs away, and that's exactly what Superman is when I asked him to prove his smarts. All I wanted was a fun competition, and he is scared that he could get some criticism that he can't shut down with a link and he may be wrong, which hurts the illusion that he's a brilliant person above everyone else on this forum.

 

 

This is asinine drivel, 100% hogwash.

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is asinine drivel, 100% hogwash.

That just proves your ego problem right there. All right over your head. You think people like me are so inferior that none of this even computed with you. You can criticize us, but since you're (supposedly) the top dog on here, you won't put yourself in a position where others can criticize you unless you can shut them down 100%. Not hogwash at all, it's the absolute truth. No one is more careful about their image and what affects it on here than you, to the point I want to play a little game for fun to see who can guess a bust and apparently I'm so beneath you that I'm not worth the time. That just shows your opinion of people on here, even though a lot of them worship you, and I'm not even a new poster, I'm one of the smarter ones and you treat me like this.

[Superman]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

That just proves your ego problem right there. All right over your head. You think people like me are so inferior that none of this even computed with you. You can criticize us, but since you're (supposedly) the top dog on here, you won't put yourself in a position where others can criticize you unless you can shut them down 100%. Not hogwash at all, it's the absolute truth. No one is more careful about their image and what affects it on here than you, to the point I want to play a little game for fun to see who can guess a bust and apparently I'm so beneath you that I'm not worth the time. That just shows your opinion of people on here, even though a lot of them worship you, and I'm not even a new poster, I'm one of the smarter ones and you treat me like this.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

When did I treat you like you're inferior? Don't project your issues on to me, or blame me for your lack of confidence in your own standing. 

 

And I didn't criticize your opinion on Barkley. I disagreed with it. Learn to deal with a disagreement without taking it personally.

 

And again, there's a ton already on the record from me, a ton of posts that I was wrong on, a ton of opinions that proved to be off base. Who cares whether I think a player is going to be a bust? This is nonsense, completely immaterial, and you hitching yourself to it says a great deal more about you than me.

 

I don't need to get into a measuring contest with you. This is your issue, not mine.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

When did I treat you like you're inferior? Don't project your issues on to me, or blame me for your lack of confidence in your own standing. 

 

And I didn't criticize your opinion on Barkley. I disagreed with it. Learn to deal with a disagreement without taking it personally.

 

And again, there's a ton already on the record from me, a ton of posts that I was wrong on, a ton of opinions that proved to be off base. Who cares whether I think a player is going to be a bust? This is nonsense, completely immaterial, and you hitching yourself to it says a great deal more about you than me.

 

I don't need to get into a measuring contest with you. This is your issue, not mine.

My issue isn't the criticism. I love being criticized if I can learn something from you. The problem was, you wouldn't back up your criticism with an example of your own. So you doubted my opinion (your words), and then didn't back it up with an example of your own so I could learn something from you (who is the top dog around here). If you doubt my opinion, then teach me what's correct so I know, don't just say my opinion is wrong and walk away, that's bush league. I want to learn your opinion and why I should agree with it.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

My issue isn't the criticism. I love being criticized if I can learn something from you. The problem was, you wouldn't back up your criticism with an example of your own. So you doubted my opinion (your words), and then didn't back it up with an example of your own so I could learn something from you (who is the top dog around here). If you doubt my opinion, then teach me what's correct so I know, don't just say my opinion is wrong and walk away, that's bush league. I want to learn your opinion and why I should agree with it.

 

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Me and Sup have had differences of opinions in the past but never one time did I feel insulted or talked down to. We all have different opinions and that is why we have this forum. You take everything said way too personal.

There will be times when we will butt heads buts that's life. You move on down the road.

Maybe you need to take a break from this forum if it gets to the point of taking things so personal.

If you have a dislike for Sup just ignore him. It's that simple.

Me and you have butted heads before but we have managed to work things out and come away with an understanding that it's OK to have different opinions without it being personal. It least that was my understanding?

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

My issue isn't the criticism. I love being criticized if I can learn something from you. The problem was, you wouldn't back up your criticism with an example of your own. So you doubted my opinion (your words), and then didn't back it up with an example of your own so I could learn something from you (who is the top dog around here). If you doubt my opinion, then teach me what's correct so I know, don't just say my opinion is wrong and walk away, that's bush league. I want to learn your opinion and why I should agree with it.

 

How dare I refuse your demand to make a meaningless prediction that I don't even believe in. That obviously must mean that I have an ego problem...

 

One more time, me disagreeing with you isn't me criticizing you. And who said you were wrong and then walked away? I stated why I disagreed with you in plain English. If you're right and Barkley is a bust, there you go.

 

It's also pretty laughable that you're trotting out this transparent 'help me learn something' angle now, when a little while ago, and for the second time in a few months, it was 'you just paste links to make it seem like you're smart.' You can save that.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

How dare I refuse your demand to make a meaningless prediction that I don't even believe in. That obviously must mean that I have an ego problem...

 

One more time, me disagreeing with you isn't me criticizing you. And who said you were wrong and then walked away? I stated why I disagreed with you in plain English. If you're right and Barkley is a bust, there you go.

 

It's also pretty laughable that you're trotting out this transparent 'help me learn something' angle now, when a little while ago, and for the second time in a few months, it was 'you just paste links to make it seem like you're smart.' You can save that.

So you don't believe any player will be a bust. I'll take that bet. How dare I ask you to make a prediction on the forum about which player in the draft will be a bust in a draft that's happening in two days? I'm a horrible person. Face it Superman, you know good and well that half these guys in the 1st round will be busts. You believe it, you just don't want to leave anything to chance because you could be wrong and it'd leave you open to criticism. That's why you have an ego problem. I'm done talking with you.

[Rally5]

14 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I call nonsense on this.....

 

All the pundits do not all agree on anything.   

 

Second,  the only pundits that come close to agreeing on anythig are the top guys.    The guys at ESPN,  NFL Network and a select few other places.    And they're not being lazy.   The cream rises to the top and separates from everything else.    The fact they're wrong is common in the personnel business.    Theere are too many variables to know for sure who is going to make it and who isn't.

 

But all the other websites look totally different...    right up until about April.   Then they look around and see how ridiculous things are and they want some credibility and they make enough changes to try and look like they know what they're talking about.

 

Remember,  mocks are viewed as click bait on the internet.    So everyone and their mother does mock draft to try and attract eye balls.     Heck, my mother has been dead for nearly 30 years and she does mock drafts out of Heaven.    (At least,  I think it's Heaven!)  

 

Like the mock draft websites that many posters from here love to play.   And they think they're close to reality when in fact they're not.    The guys who run these sites are not personnel people.   They could barely distinguis Josh Rosen from Josh Allen.      But once you get past the first round you get more and more and more wrong names in the wrong rounds.      It's not until about now that they figure out who should go where. 

 

This year there is a modest amount of agreement on the top-20.   After that,  there's a lot of difference of opinion.   You view a lack of differing opinions on things like laziess.   That just means you don't understand how scouting works.    The best propsects should be obvious to any good scout.   Seeing the wrong names at the top is not a good thing.   In most cases,  it's a sign of people who don't know what they're doing.  Like about 5 years ago when in December of a college football season (bowl season)  CBS Sports had Syracuse QB Ryan Nassib rated as the number one player in the entire upcoming draft.    Not jus the top QB, the top PLAYER overall.    Nassib wound up going in the 4th round.   So, was CBS Sports intellectually honest for being different?     Or were they just clueless and didn't know it until they had made fools of themselves? 

 

Within the leading websites, nobody is "intellectually dishonest."      You see,  the people who do these mocks,  do them for a living.  They draw a paycheck for their work.   Get enough wrong and people stop paying attention to you.    It's not like here where people post their views and they're way, way off,  and they're not held accountable.    People here have a day job where they make their money.    This is just a hobby for all of us     Big, big difference.

 

If there is "dishonesty" its in the lesser websites who are just trying to cash in on the popularity of doing mock drafts.    These people don't know what they're doing and it shows all draft season long.    And then at the end they scramble trying to make things right.    There's a raeson why I try not to pay attention to them.

 

Seems like you actually agree with most of what I say, then call nonsense.  So, ok, I'll take an exception to that point, one is because you have an opinion doesn't make you right.  In fact, I've been personally responsible and directly involved in three first-round  MLB selections and over ten draftees, so I could be uniquely qualified from that perspective, at least I can speak to my personal experience on this stuff knowing the NFL is different the big three operate similarly in terms of the inner workings of a draft process, scouting, and artificial rankings.  So where I respect your disagreement I would not go so far as to call my opinion nonsense. 

 

The Nassib is a perfect example of why people all tend to fall into the flock, because if you go that far out there and you're wrong, you get fried, so everyone goes to a safe place an then argue about whether a QB is going to go third or fifth, pick, heck we can all do that work.  There's no risk nor courage in any of that work.  That to me is intellectually dishonest if you're going to put yourself out there as a draft expert, show me some courage, show me how you can beat the 45% hit rate, but no for fear of Nassib.

 

I can appreciate you think these guys are all deep thinkers and put real work into this stuff and are completely unique in their thinking while they roll out version 6.0 that simply is based on rumors they hear and other rankings they read.  Frankly, the entire pontification process is laughable considering how much disinformation is out there.  So I think it is intellectually dishonest, you may think otherwise, that's fine. 

 

Final note I suppose, I typically regret posting retroactively because it's tough to have reasonable dialogue and it always devolves.   I wonder about your comment,'nonsense' comment, no matter,  if you ever want to have a conversation about how scouting operates, that could be reserved for another thread altogether.  I call nonsense on any of these guys being smart enough to really project anything special, it's a massive crap shoot. You'll notice they all pretty much agree on the same top guys, they just re-position them and call themselves unique. Is similar to social influence, get in a safe place of sameness and then try to differentiate within the bubble,  That's all this is.  If you love it and think it's valid good for you, I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, Rally5 said:

Seems like you actually agree with most of what I say, then call nonsense.  So, ok, I'll take an exception to that point, one is because you have an opinion doesn't make you right.  In fact, I've been personally responsible and directly involved in three first-round  MLB selections and over ten draftees, so I could be uniquely qualified from that perspective, at least I can speak to my personal experience on this stuff knowing the NFL is different the big three operate similarly in terms of the inner workings of a draft process, scouting, and artificial rankings.  So where I respect your disagreement I would not go so far as to call my opinion nonsense. 

 

The Nassib is a perfect example of why people all tend to fall into the flock, because if you go that far out there and you're wrong, you get fried, so everyone goes to a safe place an then argue about whether a QB is going to go third or fifth, pick, heck we can all do that work.  There's no risk nor courage in any of that work.  That to me is intellectually dishonest if you're going to put yourself out there as a draft expert, show me some courage, show me how you can beat the 45% hit rate, but no for fear of Nassib.

 

I can appreciate you think these guys are all deep thinkers and put real work into this stuff and are completely unique in their thinking while they roll out version 6.0 that simply is based on rumors they hear and other rankings they read.  Frankly, the entire pontification process is laughable considering how much disinformation is out there.  So I think it is intellectually dishonest, you may think otherwise, that's fine. 

 

Final note I suppose, I typically regret posting retroactively because it's tough to have reasonable dialogue and it always devolves.   I wonder about your comment,'nonsense' comment, no matter,  if you ever want to have a conversation about how scouting operates, that could be reserved for another thread altogether.  I call nonsense on any of these guys being smart enough to really project anything special, it's a massive crap shoot. You'll notice they all pretty much agree on the same top guys, they just re-position them and call themselves unique. Is similar to social influence, get in a safe place of sameness and then try to differentiate within the bubble,  That's all this is.  If you love it and think it's valid good for you, I respect your opinion, I just disagree.

 

 

 

I think you make some fair points....   

 

I think as I responded I found myself not really knowing how you defined these pundits --- meaning -- who EXACTLY are we talking about?

 

If we're talking about ESPN and NFL.com and a select few other websites,  then the view is one thing...

 

But there are so many websites out there that are doing mocks.    Done by guys who really SHOULDN'T be doing mocks.    It's just click bait for them.    And, in my view,  they don't much care if they're right or wrong.   They want the clicks.     So, for many of them,   they move the names around with different teams so the websites can tease "New player at number one!"    Or,  "a new player for your favorite team!"      That type of thing.     These sites are just trying to get you to click and takes a quick peak at what they've done.      Are you including those sites too?

 

I'm just asking....    because as I was writing I found that my answer kind of morphed and evolved due to uncertainty....

 

As to my...    "Calling nonsense..."      Please don't take offense...    just a figure of speech....    not intended for any harm...    more intended just to get the conversation started....    sorry if I over-stepped...

 

 

[buccolts]

2

More 

Days........

[Rally5]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think you make some fair points....   

 

I think as I responded I found myself not really knowing how you defined these pundits --- meaning -- who EXACTLY are we talking about?

 

If we're talking about ESPN and NFL.com and a select few other websites,  then the view is one thing...

 

But there are so many websites out there that are doing mocks.    Done by guys who really SHOULDN'T be doing mocks.    It's just click bait for them.    And, in my view,  they don't much care if they're right or wrong.   They want the clicks.     So, for many of them,   they move the names around with different teams so the websites can tease "New player at number one!"    Or,  "a new player for your favorite team!"      That type of thing.     These sites are just trying to get you to click and takes a quick peak at what they've done.      Are you including those sites too?

 

I'm just asking....    because as I was writing I found that my answer kind of morphed and evolved due to uncertainty....

 

As to my...    "Calling nonsense..."      Please don't take offense...    just a figure of speech....    not intended for any harm...    more intended just to get the conversation started....    sorry if I over-stepped...

 

 

No worries, I'm overly sensitive!    I don't go digging, so most of my info is the network guys and the few sites I consider reasonably credible.  I don't go to the 'deep web' for draft analysis because I know it's all going to be wrong in the end.  I think there's a real space for a really good evaluator to beat the number on draft day success because it's not a very agreeable rate considering the investment.  So, to be more specific I won't go much beyond, NFLN, ESPN, CBS, Walter and Bleacher report, I mean how many times do I need to see the same names repositioned right?  I would say you, me, Superman, and JC have just as good a chance of getting the top ten right as anyone else.  In fact, there are people on here I would value their opinion on a player as much as anyone else.  Can Mike Mayock tell me one more time that a guy is a "real gamer with good measurables and huge upside potential" Shove it Mike! 

[Shive]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think you make some fair points....   

 

I think as I responded I found myself not really knowing how you defined these pundits --- meaning -- who EXACTLY are we talking about?

 

If we're talking about ESPN and NFL.com and a select few other websites,  then the view is one thing...

 

But there are so many websites out there that are doing mocks.    Done by guys who really SHOULDN'T be doing mocks.    It's just click bait for them.    And, in my view,  they don't much care if they're right or wrong.   They want the clicks.     So, for many of them,   they move the names around with different teams so the websites can tease "New player at number one!"    Or,  "a new player for your favorite team!"      That type of thing.     These sites are just trying to get you to click and takes a quick peak at what they've done.      Are you including those sites too?

 

I'm just asking....    because as I was writing I found that my answer kind of morphed and evolved due to uncertainty....

 

As to my...    "Calling nonsense..."      Please don't take offense...    just a figure of speech....    not intended for any harm...    more intended just to get the conversation started....    sorry if I over-stepped...

 

 

Honestly, I believe the big sites are the absolute worst with clickbait. We all look at the new version of Kiper or McShay's Mock Draft to see where they have everyone projected to go. If it was the same old, same old, there would be no reason to check it out. They make deliberate mock projections with the complete intention of drawing attention to their newest iteration, in which they now have 3-4 guys a spot or 2 lower than the last mock, then "OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHO MCSHAY HAS GOING TO THE DOLPHINS!!!"

 

Most people in "journalism" these days, especially for large media outlets like ESPN, are just farming for clicks (there are still some true journalists out there, just few and far between). I find the medium to smaller sites are often more genuine in their content, because they don't have the corporate website traffic expectations.

 

Mock drafts are what they are. A huge guessing game. While I love to do them for us myself, I enjoy the prospect evaluation process way more and find that you don't get a lot of nonsense when it comes to draft profiles and evaluations.

 

And...I'm done with my tangent/droning. 

[NewColtsFan]

38 minutes ago, Shive said:

Honestly, I believe the big sites are the absolute worst with clickbait. We all look at the new version of Kiper or McShay's Mock Draft to see where they have everyone projected to go. If it was the same old, same old, there would be no reason to check it out. They make deliberate mock projections with the complete intention of drawing attention to their newest iteration, in which they now have 3-4 guys a spot or 2 lower than the last mock, then "OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHO MCSHAY HAS GOING TO THE DOLPHINS!!!"

 

Most people in "journalism" these days, especially for large media outlets like ESPN, are just farming for clicks (there are still some true journalists out there, just few and far between). I find the medium to smaller sites are often more genuine in their content, because they don't have the corporate website traffic expectations.

 

Mock drafts are what they are. A huge guessing game. While I love to do them for us myself, I enjoy the prospect evaluation process way more and find that you don't get a lot of nonsense when it comes to draft profiles and evaluations.

 

And...I'm done with my tangent/droning. 

 

For what it's worth...

 

I think both Mel and Todd grow tired of mocks.   I've heard both of them somewhat complain about them...    but they both have marching orders and are paid huge money to do so...

 

I don't think they mind so much doing their Big Boards (which also get teased and promoted) but I think the prefer that to the mocks...  until draft season heats up...  then it's all about them...   this is when they earn their money...

 

 

[Bluefire4]

10 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

So you don't believe any player will be a bust. I'll take that bet. How dare I ask you to make a prediction on the forum about which player in the draft will be a bust in a draft that's happening in two days? I'm a horrible person. Face it Superman, you know good and well that half these guys in the 1st round will be busts. You believe it, you just don't want to leave anything to chance because you could be wrong and it'd leave you open to criticism. That's why you have an ego problem. I'm done talking with you.

Man what the heck are you even trying to prove? Why are you jealous just because someone gets more attention than you?

 

This is a forum full of football fans sharing their opinions. Nobody is claiming to be an expert or claiming to be smarter than anybody else. This isn't a competition.

 

You claiming Barkley to be a bust off of ONE flaw you think you see does not make you more credible than anybody else on here.

[gspdx]

On 4/23/2018 at 4:41 PM, 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.

Is this some kind of weird competition?  Are you going to look back 4 years down the road to see if you picked the busts better than someone else?

 

Why are you "calling people out"  on a message board?

 

Lighten up man.  There are way more important things in life.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, gspdx said:

Is this some kind of weird competition?  Are you going to look back 4 years down the road to see if you picked the busts better than someone else?

 

Why are you "calling people out"  on a message board?

 

Lighten up man.  There are way more important things in life.

It was supposed to be a friendly competition to see who could predict an early round bust. I said Barkley and he didn't like it, so I asked him to give an example and he refused to do it. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but if you don't like my example, give one of your own so I can agree or disagree. I like to do competitions on the board for fun, put my knowledge against others. Usually people are very easygoing about it and nice, he completely backed off from doing it for some reason. Wouldn't of hurt anything. Also just a lot of things about him that rub me the wrong way, but I'm not bringing it up again.

[Superman]

On 4/23/2018 at 9:36 PM, OffensivelyPC said:

He does have incredible attributes, and I still think his issues are coachable, or at least "more easily" coachable. But you could probably count me in the group that assumed question marks would end up being check marks. To some extent, I still think thats true - learning to use his length because he is only 19 and is still early in that process, for instance. 

 

 

My thing is, there are a lot of prospects with coachable issues who never fix those issues. I said in another thread a couple weeks ago, I think there have been a lot of prospects hyped as much as Edmunds as a unique talent, who failed to develop/perform in the NFL. Aaron Curry is a test case, and he wasn't as raw as Edmunds is.

 

Just seems like people assume he'll get better in the NFL, as if that's an automatic. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's not automatic, a lot of prospects never develop in the NFL. 

[crazycolt1]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

My thing is, there are a lot of prospects with coachable issues who never fix those issues. I said in another thread a couple weeks ago, I think there have been a lot of prospects hyped as much as Edmunds as a unique talent, who failed to develop/perform in the NFL. Aaron Curry is a test case, and he wasn't as raw as Edmunds is.

 

Just seems like people assume he'll get better in the NFL, as if that's an automatic. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's not automatic, a lot of prospects never develop in the NFL. 

That can be said of just about any player that is drafted. The history of bust starts at pick #1 all the way down to Mr. Irrelevant.

[crazycolt1]

7 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

It was supposed to be a friendly competition to see who could predict an early round bust. I said Barkley and he didn't like it, so I asked him to give an example and he refused to do it. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but if you don't like my example, give one of your own so I can agree or disagree. I like to do competitions on the board for fun, put my knowledge against others. Usually people are very easygoing about it and nice, he completely backed off from doing it for some reason. Wouldn't of hurt anything. Also just a lot of things about him that rub me the wrong way, but I'm not bringing it up again.

It was suppose to be friendly?  You made sure it was anything but that.

Not everyone want's competition in a forum. What purpose does it serve? 

For God's sake, it's a forum.

Sup didn't feel like participating. So what? You get all personal about it for what reason? I have a feeling you have a problem that goes much deeper than this forum and it's members.

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

That can be said of just about any player that is drafted. The history of bust starts at pick #1 all the way down to Mr. Irrelevant.

 

That's true, and that's kind of my point. Every prospect has to develop to be successful, but there are some who need even more development than most. When those development prospects have question marks, the tendency is to gloss over the questions and assume that the player is going to hit his ceiling. In reality, more often than not, players don't hit their projected ceiling in the NFL, and the more question marks a player has coming out, the more likely he is to struggle at the next level.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's true, and that's kind of my point. Every prospect has to develop to be successful, but there are some who need even more development than most. When those development prospects have question marks, the tendency is to gloss over the questions and assume that the player is going to hit his ceiling. In reality, more often than not, players don't hit their projected ceiling in the NFL, and the more question marks a player has coming out, the more likely he is to struggle at the next level.

IMO in the Edmunds case his question marks come more from being 19 years old. He has the measurable and the speed. The mistakes I see him making are from lack of experience while he is still filling out his frame.

I see him and Smith both turning out to be great players. They both make basically the same mistakes as far as what they do on the field.

If the Colts do end up picking one of the two I would be pretty happy.

Now if Chubb would happen to fall then all bets are off.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

IMO in the Edmunds case his question marks come more from being 19 years old. He has the measurable and the speed. The mistakes I see him making are from lack of experience while he is still filling out his frame.

I see him and Smith both turning out to be great players. They both make basically the same mistakes as far as what they do on the field.

If the Colts do end up picking one of the two I would be pretty happy.

Now if Chubb would happen to fall then all bets are off.

 

Agreed. I wouldn't mind drafting Edmunds, I just have Smith ahead of him.

[OffensivelyPC]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

My thing is, there are a lot of prospects with coachable issues who never fix those issues. I said in another thread a couple weeks ago, I think there have been a lot of prospects hyped as much as Edmunds as a unique talent, who failed to develop/perform in the NFL. Aaron Curry is a test case, and he wasn't as raw as Edmunds is.

 

Just seems like people assume he'll get better in the NFL, as if that's an automatic. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's not automatic, a lot of prospects never develop in the NFL. 

Its hard not to take ceiling into the equation.  One school of thought is draft the player where he is now, and the other is draft the player where he will be, and there's a whole spectrum on where our preference falls and none of us will agree on a regular basis. 

 

As it pertains to ILBs, id rather swing for the fences, because there always seem to be FA options and lots of mid-round draft options. But rare is the off the ball gamewrecking LB. Roquan is not that guy, but Tremaine is. At least it it is IMO. We will see. 

 

 

[Valpo2004]

On 4/23/2018 at 8:19 PM, 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. 

 

Ehh Reggie Bush was a minor bust.  

 

I think especially when it comes to high first round picks to qualify different types of busts.  Major busts are first round picks who within 4 or 5 years are either out of the NFL or regulated to special teams or the bench.  

 

A minor bust would be a guy who had a decent length career and was a starter but just never had the production/play that was expected out of their draft status.  

 

Reggie Bush qualifies as a minor bust.  His NFL play never really lived up to his draft status but he had a decent career and was never a bench warmer.  

[Valpo2004]

14 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

That can be said of just about any player that is drafted. The history of bust starts at pick #1 all the way down to Mr. Irrelevant.

 

Meh at some point after the 4th round or so a player is "bust proof"  

 

Bust is production vs. expectations.  So at some point after the 4th round the expectations are so low that you can not possibly be a bust.  The only exception to this is special team players, punters and kickers.  Drafted punters and kickers are expected to perform as most players at their position go undrafted.  Fullback might also count in here as well.

 

But the remaining position players if they are drafted that low it's generally because the expectations are so low that they can not possibly fail to live up to them.  

 

Low round picks are essentially bust proof while top 10 picks are essentially steal proof.  The opposite thing occurs there, the expectations are so high that one can not really ever proclaim them a draft steal.  

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Meh at some point after the 4th round or so a player is "bust proof"  

 

Bust is production vs. expectations.  So at some point after the 4th round the expectations are so low that you can not possibly be a bust.  The only exception to this is special team players, punters and kickers.  Drafted punters and kickers are expected to perform as most players at their position go undrafted.  Fullback might also count in here as well.

 

But the remaining position players if they are drafted that low it's generally because the expectations are so low that they can not possibly fail to live up to them.  

 

Low round picks are essentially bust proof while top 10 picks are essentially steal proof.  The opposite thing occurs there, the expectations are so high that one can not really ever proclaim them a draft steal.  

Taking my comment to the extreme aren't you?  I think most realized when I made my comment that there are players who don't work out to be NFL players and that can happen in any round.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Ehh Reggie Bush was a minor bust.  

 

I think especially when it comes to high first round picks to qualify different types of busts.  Major busts are first round picks who within 4 or 5 years are either out of the NFL or regulated to special teams or the bench.  

 

A minor bust would be a guy who had a decent length career and was a starter but just never had the production/play that was expected out of their draft status.  

 

Reggie Bush qualifies as a minor bust.  His NFL play never really lived up to his draft status but he had a decent career and was never a bench warmer.  

 

I say he didn't live up to his draft status, you say minor bust. It's like we're broadening the definition of the word bust so that we can include more players in that category. 

 

Bush played 11 years, had over 9,000 scrimmage yards and 58 total touchdowns. He never had outstanding production, but he was a good player for several seasons. I don't think that's a bust. 

 

More on topic, I expect Barkley to be much more productive than Bush was, especially for the next 3-4 seasons. 

[Valpo2004]

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I say he didn't live up to his draft status, you say minor bust. It's like we're broadening the definition of the word bust so that we can include more players in that category. 

 

Bush played 11 years, had over 9,000 scrimmage yards and 58 total touchdowns. He never had outstanding production, but he was a good player for several seasons. I don't think that's a bust. 

 

More on topic, I expect Barkley to be much more productive than Bush was, especially for the next 3-4 seasons. 

 

Isn't the definition of a bust not living up to your draft status?

 

I agree on Barkley.  He seems to have more tools in his chest.  Barkley seems to have more ability to power through tackles then Bush had although I'm curious where the info on his yards after contact came from.  Barkley also seems to be a bigger play maker in the pass game then Bush.  

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Isn't the definition of a bust not living up to your draft status?

 

I agree on Barkley.  He seems to have more tools in his chest.  Barkley seems to have more ability to power through tackles then Bush had although I'm curious where the info on his yards after contact came from.  Barkley also seems to be a bigger play maker in the pass game then Bush.  

 

I reserve the word bust for players who wind up being colossal mistakes, fail to produce, and generally wind up out of the league after 3-4 years. Ryan Leaf, Trent Richardson, etc. There are also guys who play really bad, but wind up having a modest rebound and becoming decent players for a while -- Matt Kalil, maybe even Alex Smith, etc. 

 

Using the broader definition "didn't live up to his draft status," you could argue that Jadaveon Clowney is a bust. To me, bust is a strong term meant for someone who basically failed as a player.

[aaron11]

4 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Ehh Reggie Bush was a minor bust.  

 

I think especially when it comes to high first round picks to qualify different types of busts.  Major busts are first round picks who within 4 or 5 years are either out of the NFL or regulated to special teams or the bench.  

 

A minor bust would be a guy who had a decent length career and was a starter but just never had the production/play that was expected out of their draft status.  

 

Reggie Bush qualifies as a minor bust.  His NFL play never really lived up to his draft status but he had a decent career and was never a bench warmer.  

i dont think he was a bust.  he did get a first team all pro, his career numbers are good, plus he won a super bowl and made some big plays in the play offs