For me, the most pro-ready and best all around prospect at WR is Amari Cooper. He would come in and immediately start across from Bowe and eventually replace him as the primary WR.
What's wrong with Sammy Coates?
The guy has all of the tools in the world, I would equate him to Vernon Davis but at the WR position, but he hasn't produced much at all this season. Coates isn't even close to being his team's leading receiver so I'm not going to blame it on the scheme. Physically, Coates looks like a top 10 pick but his production is that of a mid to late rounder. Where would you take him?
Any thoughts on Coates' teammate, D'haquille Williams?
There is a massive difference in production between he and Sammy Coates so far this year; yes, this could be entirely due to Coates being injured from the Arkansas game but Coates only caught one pass in that game and dropped a possible TD pass despite playing 52 snaps against the Razorbacks. Williams is a JUCO transfer with good size, speed, and explosiveness, though not on the same level as Coates as far as pure physical ability goes. Is he a potential #1 WR or just a 2 at best?
Does DGB declare? If so, do you even dare to touch him given his off-field issues?
Despite not playing this season, I think that there is a real possibility that DGB does declare for the 2015 NFL draft; he just doesn't seem like the type of person who would be willing to go through another year of college over getting paid as a pro athlete. If he does declare, what round would you be willing to take a risk on him? The guy has had problems with at least two key NFL issues, abuse of women and weed. DGB has top 5 talent but an off-field reputation that would have him banned from the league if he had committed those acts as a Pro.
Do Jaelen Strong, Kevin White, or Devante Parker have enough speed to be potential #1 WRs? If not, are their other gifts good enough for them to be close to what Larry Fitzgerald has been in the league?
Is Stefon Diggs actually that fast? When I watch him, I don't see the same dimension of speed that guys like Jackson, Wallace, etc have. I'll be very curious to see what he actually runs at the Combine.
Who are you guys keeping your eyes on this year at the WR position? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jakemall:
I'm almost always in favor of trading down.
Put me in there as trading down as well, we should have a decent pick if we are looking for DT, and most of the OT are projected as moving to OG anyway.
If we cannot land one of top 3 WOs there is not going to be much of a difference maker at 18th spot we can about the same 4 to 5 picks later.
If I am the GM I would be talking up some players RBs WOs, pash rushers that fall within 18th spot and hope we can hook in team for a extra 3rd draft pick.
That would give us say 4 picks in the top 100 players to chose off the big board OL/DB/DT/WO/.
Pray same teams has their hooks on some player and will take him at 18th. [Reply]
Originally Posted by redshirt32:
Put me in there as trading down as well, we should have a decent pick if we are looking for DT, and most of the OT are projected as moving to OG anyway.
If we cannot land one of top 3 WOs there is not going to be much of a difference maker at 18th spot we can about the same 4 to 5 picks later.
If I am the GM I would be talking up some players RBs WOs, pash rushers that fall within 18th spot and hope we can hook in team for a extra 3rd draft pick.
That would give us say 4 picks in the top 100 players to chose off the big board OL/DB/DT/WO/.
Pray same teams has their hooks on some player and will take him at 18th.
From a statistical and analytical standpoint, it is better to trade down in the 1st round. My understanding is that no matter how sure you are that this guy is going to be the next Jerry Rice or Reggie White or Joe Montana, odds are you're wrong and better served by getting extra picks and spreading your risk.
Most GMs don't believe it though. They have too much confidence in their ability to pick players to do this. New England is the only team that appears to do this on a somewhat regular basis (as far as I have noticed)...hasn't worked out too badly for them.
I remember reading about this a while back. It occurs to me that this might work for the first round, but I'm sure there are diminishing returns and a point where you might even want to start trading up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Trading down hasn't really worked out that we'll for the Pats either. Until recent drafts, they've been shitty drafters
If you're a shitty Scouter/drafter, you're better off shot gunning the draft. At least you have a chance of getting someone good. Doesn't mean it will always happen.
Originally Posted by O.city:
More picks does statistically equal more chances, but those chances diminish when the round of the pick is lower.
A first rounder is going to have a higher chance of success than 2 5th rounders combined
You're right..but a first rounder is not going to have a higher chance of success than 2 2nd rounders. Remember you're not going to trade out of a 1st round for 2 5ths.... unless maybe you're the Raiders or Washington. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jakemall:
You're right..but a first rounder is not going to have a higher chance of success than 2 2nd rounders. Remember you're not going to trade out of a 1st round for 2 5ths.
Then you get into impact of the player talk.
If youre at the end of th first round, I'd agree more. At 18, I wouldn't want to trade back too far. but ultimately, it's always a good idea [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Then you get into impact of the player talk.
If youre at the end of th first round, I'd agree more. At 18, I wouldn't want to trade back too far. but ultimately, it's always a good idea
Again, I am just going on what I read that stated based on a statistical analysis of years of drafting no GM is good enough to beat the odds on a regular basis. You're better off trading out of whatever 1st round pick you have for more picks. That doesn't always mean trading out of the 1st round.
Early on, the statistic favor trading down more strongly. Meaning the smartest thing you can do with the 1-1 pick is trade. Even if Manning is there. Because you don't know if he is going to be Manning, Alex Smith, David Carr, or Jamarcus Russell.
I'm not familiar enough with the study to know what the actual breakeven point is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jakemall:
Again, I am just going on what I read that stated based on a statistical analysis of years of drafting no GM is good enough to beat the odds on a regular basis. You're better off trading out of whatever 1st round pick you have for more picks. That doesn't always mean trading out of the 1st round.
Early on, the statistic favor trading down more strongly. Meaning the smartest thing you can do with the 1-1 pick is trade. Even if Manning is there. Because you don't know if he is going to be Manning, Alex Smith, David Carr, or Jamarcus Russell.
I'm not familiar enough with the study to know what the actual breakeven point is.
That's where stats can't tell the whole story. Each prospect is different and the possibly return on a qb always out weights the downside.
With the new wage scale, it's changed that as well, with the franchise crippling of a bust not as high [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
That's where stats can't tell the whole story. Each prospect is different and the possibly return on a qb always out weights the downside.
With the new wage scale, it's changed that as well, with the franchise crippling of a bust not as high
And that's the argument that GMs make. The statistics argue that NO GM is smart enough to win out using that info over the statistics in the long run. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jakemall:
And that's the argument that GMs make. The statistics argue that NO GM is smart enough to win out using that info over the statistics in the long run.
Because in that situation, the statistics lead to a wrong decision.
QB is still a multiplier. If you can get a great one like manning, the chance you have to take and the picks you have to give up are worth it.
This is speaking of qbs though, in terms of other picks, it wouldn't matter.
But again, trading down takes 2 to tango, so it isn't always as simple as saying "I want to trade down". [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Trading down hasn't really worked out that we'll for the Pats either. Until recent drafts, they've been shitty drafters
Yes, but the odds are that they would have drafted equally shitty players in the first round, would have them on guaranteed contracts that are more expensive, and had less chances to hit on a player.
If you draft shitty, you ABSOLUTELY want more picks - because that's just more chances of getting lucky. [Reply]
Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
Yes, but the odds are that they would have drafted equally shitty players in the first round, would have them on guaranteed contracts that are more expensive, and had less chances to hit on a player.
If you draft shitty, you ABSOLUTELY want more picks - because that's just more chances of getting lucky.
If you draft shitty, what's it matter?
maybe if that's the case, improve your drafting? [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Because in that situation, the statistics lead to a wrong decision.
QB is still a multiplier. If you can get a great one like manning, the chance you have to take and the picks you have to give up are worth it.
This is speaking of qbs though, in terms of other picks, it wouldn't matter.
But again, trading down takes 2 to tango, so it isn't always as simple as saying "I want to trade down".
You're right, it does take two to tango. Sometimes you can't trade out of a pick, that doesn't mean that you wouldn't have been better off if you could.
You keep pointing out to context vs stats. Stats suggest that no GM is smart enough to pick out the context. Example Eli Manning. Context at the time said he was the next Peyton. He's a solid QB, but certainly not Peyton. Now look at what he was traded for:
Philip Rivers, Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding.
No question in my mind that SD came out ahead with this deal. Manning might be slightly better than Rivers...might...but the rest of the trade goes to SD.
Instead of trading up the Giants could have stayed put and gotten Big Ben.
If you look at every trade ever made in the 1st round in the history of the NFL you will find that the majority of the "winners" were the ones trading down.
That nullifies the value of the GM's smarts. [Reply]