For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28.....

[plk]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

So let me see if I have this straight.

QB's are extremely difficult to project and have a high flame out rate.

So if Miami gets the first pick in the draft, they should pass on Luck because if he does not work out they will still need a QB???????

This makes no sense to me.

No, you did not get it straight. I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

Drafting a player that you have more confidence in, rather than drafting a player that you have less confidence in, does make sense to me.

It is time to draft an OLB/DE high and develop him, even if the kid has to sit a year behind a veteran retread while learning the position."

As I understand it, a key element of Belichick's draft philosophy is to be as sure as he possibly can be, and that is still way below 100%, that he will get a reliable starter with a first-round pick. He simply does not gamble any more than he has to with those picks.

Perhaps Belichick will find a OLB/DE that he has confidence in, and he will draft him in the first round. But if he doesn't find one that he has confidence will develop, he is not going to draft one just because he needs one.

I'm afraid you may have to reconcile yourself to being forever frustrated.

 

[Sciz]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

So let me see if I have this straight.

QB's are extremely difficult to project and have a high flame out rate.

So if Miami gets the first pick in the draft, they should pass on Luck because if he does not work out they will still need a QB???????

Belichick was also talking under the assumption that the player at the position of need is not the highest rated player. Luck will, in all likelihood, be the highest rated player regardless of position. It's more like:

1. I need a [pass rusher].
2. I do not think any of the [pass rushers] are a long-term solution.
3. Therefore, I think that if I draft a [pass rusher] out of need, he will not be a long-term solution.
4. Therefore, I will not have filled that need at [pass rusher].
5. Therefore, I will still need a [pass rusher].

Your Luck example (replace [pass rusher] with [quarterback]) fails at #2.

And, somewhat ironically, the best example I can give of this is the Dolphins at QB. They blew I believe 4 second round picks on quarterbacks in the last 8 years or so. None of them worked out, and they were left with the same need at QB, plus 4 wasted 2nd round picks.

 

[patchick]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

In my mind Dowling is BB's attempt to catch lightening in a bottle yet again.

The previous year BB took Gronkowski in the second round. A player that missed the entire previous season with a back injury, but if he had been healthy and played, he would have been a sure fire 1st rounder.

Now comes Dowling. I guy that if healthy would have been a sure fire first round 1st round draft pick.

I think this is a GREAT point, and it plays into the fact that the idea of players being "injury prone" is vastly overrated. It's a matter of the availability fallacy -- the natural human tendency to overestimate the frequency/probability of events which come to mind easily.

It's really easy to notice and remember the guys who keep getting injured. They stand out. Meanwhile the many, MANY players who enter the league with a serious injury history but then stay relatively healthy don't catch our eye. (They report an injury list every week, not a health list, after all.)

To counter that fallacy, here are a few names to keep in mind of players who were considered huge injury risks at draft time, but have been largely injury free as pros:

Adrian Peterson
Percy Harvin
Antonio Cromartie
Michael Bush
Jonathan Stewart
Rob Gronkowski

Then there's a guy like Felix Jones who was nice and healthy in college and can't stay on the field in the NFL.

All you can do with injuries is perform a thorough medical evaluation and take your best shot. You can't predict the future.

 

[RJB87]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

While Percy Harvin has suited up for 15 games a year, he's left a ton of them early. Sames goes for Cromartie.

 

[plk]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

And, somewhat ironically, the best example I can give of this is the Dolphins at QB. They blew I believe 4 second round picks on quarterbacks in the last 8 years or so. None of them worked out, and they were left with the same need at QB, plus 4 wasted 2nd round picks.

At least they were not blowing high first-round picks, selecting the best available quarterback just because they need a quarterback, even though they were not convinced by the player. (Or wouldn't have been convinced by the player except that they felt they had to draft a quarterback and talked themselves into it.)

 

[plk]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

I think this is a GREAT point, and it plays into the fact that the idea of players being "injury prone" is vastly overrated.

I would dearly love to know if there is any actual evidence that some players are "injury prone."

My own guess, and lacking evidence, it is only that, is that if any players are "injury prone," they wash out by college, and after that, injuries are mostly randomly distributed. Please note that if injuries are randomly distributed in something like a bell shaped curve, some players will be very unlucky and have a lot of injuries, and some players will be very lucky and have very few injuries.

Random distribution does not imply equal distribution.

Perhaps BB believes that players being "injury prone" is overrated, and he is exploiting the market inefficiency that results.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

And, somewhat ironically, the best example I can give of this is the Dolphins at QB. They blew I believe 4 second round picks on quarterbacks in the last 8 years or so. None of them worked out, and they were left with the same need at QB, plus 4 wasted 2nd round picks.

At least they were not blowing high first-round picks, selecting the best available quarterback just because they need a quarterback, even though they were not convinced by the player. (Or wouldn't have been convinced by the player except that they felt they had to draft a quarterback and talked themselves into it.)

Uh...

No offense, but you can HAVE my 1 1st Rounder, and I'll take your 4 2nd Rounders, thank you VERY much!! :rocker:

The Game of the CENTURY!!

For those who are not intimately familiar with The MasterPiece of MasterPieces:

The Link provided lets you play it out 1 move at a time.

 

[plk]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

Uh...

No offense, but you can HAVE my 1 1st Rounder, and I'll take your 4 2nd Rounders, thank you VERY much!! :rocker:

If I had said pick, I would agree with you. Actually, I said picks.

At least they were blowing second-round picks rather than high first-round picks which I believe happens. Got it?

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

You seem to be dealing with a lot of rage, there, sport.

Do you want to talk about it??

***

Do you know any teams blowing multiple 1st Rounders on QB's in consecutive years, lately??

In THIS Galaxy, I mean??

I don't.

The FISH, on the other hand, blew 2nd Rounders in THREE consecutive years!!

...In the REAL World.

Miami Dolphins All-Time Draft History - Pro-Football-Reference.com

***

Your employment of the plural form ~ as most intelligent people grasp ~ did not necessarily imply multiple occasions. If it was meant to, then it was on you to specify, and I can hardly be blamed for constraining my interpretation to reality...something which you clearly object to.

For instance, if someone were to say "I bitterly lash out at people who oppose my point of view.", that could, obviously, refer to a single instance of such.

Theoretically.

Unless, of course, your point was to say that an hypothetical and ridiculously unrealistic scenario of a team blowing 3 consecutive 1st Rounders on bad QB's would be worse that the Fish actually blowing 3 2nd Rounders on bad QB's in the real world, as they just did.

If so: Bravo.

Very insightfull Analysis, there.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

I would dearly love to know if there is any actual evidence that some players are "injury prone."

My own guess, and lacking evidence, it is only that, is that if any players are "injury prone," they wash out by college, and after that, injuries are mostly randomly distributed. Please note that if injuries are randomly distributed in something like a bell shaped curve, some players will be very unlucky and have a lot of injuries, and some players will be very lucky and have very few injuries.

Random distribution does not imply equal distribution.

Perhaps BB believes that players being "injury prone" is overrated, and he is exploiting the market inefficiency that results.

- If a player knows how to relax before impact and also position themselves to fall correctly they're VASTLY less likely to become injured, players that tighten up before impact will get hurt worse and more frequently. In a car accident it's always the drunk driver that's less injured than the sober guy.

- The body compensates after an injury, which usually means they have a different and less than optimal tension scheme running through their body, when another injury occurs it can produce especially harmful results depending on how those tensions interact, this is evident when 2 waves in the opposite direction interact.

So, the body skills of the player along with the quality of the teams treatment/rehab specialists is critical, if those aren't good a player will indeed be 'injury prone'.

 

[Sciz]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

The FISH, on the other hand, blew 2nd Rounders in THREE consecutive years!!

...In the REAL World.

Miami Dolphins All-Time Draft History - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Four. Don't forget this:
Vikings deal Culpepper to Miami for second-round pick - NFL - ESPN
They got 4 games out of him that year. So there's a 2nd round pick used on a QB in 06, 07, 08, AND 09

 

[plk]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

Unless, of course, your point was to say that an hypothetical and ridiculously unrealistic scenario of a team blowing 3 consecutive 1st Rounders on bad QB's would be worse that the Fish actually blowing 3 2nd Rounders on bad QB's in the real world, as they just did.

If so: Bravo.

Very insightfull Analysis, there.

I am delighted to see that you finally came to understand what I was saying.

In line with my earlier comment that BB does not want to gamble any more than is unavoidable with first-round picks, I was pointing out that if a team wants to "take a shot," it is better to do it with a second-round pick than with a first-round pick.

I was not trying to determine the relative value of one first-round pick and 4 second round picks as you seemed to think.

I'm quite sorry that I confused you.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

I am delighted to see that you finally came to understand what I was saying.

In line with my earlier comment that BB does not want to gamble any more than is unavoidable with first-round picks, I was pointing out that if a team wants to "take a shot," it is better to do it with a second-round pick than with a first-round pick.

I was not trying to determine the relative value of one first-round pick and 4 second round picks as you seemed to think.

I'm quite sorry that I confused you.

I'm curious, since nothing is a sure thing in the draft when is picking a player not 'taking a shot'? Also, why would taking a shot make more sense in the 2nd round rather than the 1st? There may be less risk but there's likely also less reward.

 

[plk]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

I'm curious, since nothing is a sure thing in the draft when is picking a player not 'taking a shot'?

One specific example, which has been discussed a lot in another thread, is that there simply was not enough information about Clay Matthews for the Patriots to project him, and feel comfortable taking him. The Packers were willing to "take a shot," and in this case, they were rewarded.

In general, drafting a player with a first-round pick when he has great potential, but also the potential to be a complete bust, falls into this category.

Also, why would taking a shot make more sense in the 2nd round rather than the 1st? There may be less risk but there's likely also less reward.

My understanding of Belichick's philosophy is that he does not "swing for the fences" with first-round picks. He wants to be as sure as he can be that he will get a reliable starter. This leaves out the high risk/high reward picks.

BB has been very successful building his teams based on getting a reliable starter out of the first round. Then he can gamble with later picks, when he thinks the odds are favorable, that are high risk/high reward.

At least, that is how I understand things.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

Unless, of course, your point was to say that an hypothetical and ridiculously unrealistic scenario of a team blowing 3 consecutive 1st Rounders on bad QB's would be worse that the Fish actually blowing 3 2nd Rounders on bad QB's in the real world, as they just did.

If so: Bravo.

Very insightfull Analysis, there.

I am delighted to see that you finally came to understand what I was saying.

Actually, I'm embarrassed for you, because you thought that that was worth saying.

I actually gave you more credit than that, and assumed/hoped you were making a point that was less ridiculously obvious and at least remotely feasible in the real world.

Busting on 4 1st Rounders is worse than busting on 4 2nd Rounders.

Yes.

A really break through insight, there, pal. Well done.

 

[Off The Grid]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

Four. Don't forget this:
Vikings deal Culpepper to Miami for second-round pick - NFL - ESPN
They got 4 games out of him that year. So there's a 2nd round pick used on a QB in 06, 07, 08, AND 09

Good GOD, that's RIGHT.

Well...better them than US!!

 

[plk]

Re: For those who wanted Pats to select Muhammad Wilkerson rather than trade # 28....

Actually, I'm embarrassed for you, because you thought that that was worth saying.

You are complaining that someone said something that wasn't worth saying. Interesting.