Recapping the 2021 Draft (Post-Draft Talk)

[ronjon1990]

5 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I was referring to the dictionary definition of the word not the game it’s based on

It's also the same thing...

The dictionary describes it as a "risky or uncertain matter". 

Tossing a pair of dice with money on the line is also a "risky and uncertain matter" as it's virtually impossible to know what number will come up.

 

[Jeremy408]

6 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

It's also the same thing...

The dictionary describes it as a "risky or uncertain matter". 

Tossing a pair of dice with money on the line is also a "risky and uncertain matter" as it's virtually impossible to know what number will come up.

 

I mean think about this: Why do teams like the Rams trade their first round pick every year for a proven player? When the Cowboys needed a receiver why did they trade us their first round pick for Amari Cooper if it was just simple enough to draft a receiver? Because the draft isn't a sure bet.

[Rich7sena]

9 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

It's also the same thing...

The dictionary describes it as a "risky or uncertain matter". 

Tossing a pair of dice with money on the line is also a "risky and uncertain matter" as it's virtually impossible to know what number will come up.

 

It's not virtually impossible to know whether a player will be good or not.

[Jeremy408]

31 minutes ago, Rich7sena said:

It's not virtually impossible to know whether a player will be good or not.

Then how was Robert gallery a bust he was considered the safest pick in the entire draft in 2004. How about Aaron Curry who is considered the safest picking his draft? 

[ronjon1990]

30 minutes ago, Rich7sena said:

It's not virtually impossible to know whether a player will be good or not.

But it kind of is. 

Every single year there's a player or two at best that wind up busting out of "nowhere". 

At best, several factors can be used to make an educated guess. Now, I don't think we make very educated guesses myself. I've been pretty much disgusted with our drafting. In my opinion, Gruden and Mayock just fly by the seat of their pants. I base that off of the fact that our clear reaches pretty much never work out. And I criticize that. 

But there's no way to criticize a player who hasn't taken a single NFL snap. And there's no way to know who will or won't be good when you're talking draftable players. I hated the Leatherwood pick. I absolutely hated taking him for several reasons. It's not like he had a UDFA grade though. In that case, more of an argument could he made. 

[Rich7sena]

9 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

Then how was Robert gallery a bust he was considered the safest pick in the entire draft in 2004. How about Aaron Curry who is considered the safest picking his draft? 

That's not how odds work. Just because a player can bust doesn't mean it's unknowable whether a player will be successful. Think of it this way: why are the vast majority of starting quarterbacks selected in the first round? If it were truly a crapshoot, then we wouldn't progressively lower hit rates on players as the draft progressed.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Rich7sena

[ronjon1990]

38 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I mean think about this: Why do teams like the Rams trade their first round pick every year for a proven player? When the Cowboys needed a receiver why did they trade us their first round pick for Amari Cooper if it was just simple enough to draft a receiver? Because the draft isn't a sure bet.

Oh I 100% agree. I never consider any player a sure bet. I laugh at those who get wrapped up in the buzz words like "generational talent" and "future Hall of Famer" when it comes to the draft. Sort of like people already asking "How long will it take Trevor Lawrence to win 3 Superbowls?" lol. 

[Rich7sena]

2 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

But it kind of is. 

Every single year there's a player or two at best that wind up busting out of "nowhere". 

At best, several factors can be used to make an educated guess. Now, I don't think we make very educated guesses myself. I've been pretty much disgusted with our drafting. In my opinion, Gruden and Mayock just fly by the seat of their pants. I base that off of the fact that our clear reaches pretty much never work out. And I criticize that. 

But there's no way to criticize a player who hasn't taken a single NFL snap. And there's no way to know who will or won't be good when you're talking draftable players. I hated the Leatherwood pick. I absolutely hated taking him for several reasons. It's not like he had a UDFA grade though. In that case, more of an argument could he made. 

False. See my most above.

Also, we can absolutely criticize a player who hasn't taken an NFL snap if we've seen their college snaps. It doesn't mean they won't be successful, but we can definitely criticize a guy for deficiencies that show up in his game in college. There is absolutely a way to know who will be good, it's called watching them play and making an evaluation.

[Rich7sena]

53 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I mean think about this: Why do teams like the Rams trade their first round pick every year for a proven player? When the Cowboys needed a receiver why did they trade us their first round pick for Amari Cooper if it was just simple enough to draft a receiver? Because the draft isn't a sure bet.

You're not understanding. In craps, you no idea whether a dice roll will be successful or not. In the draft, you do have an idea whether a player will be successful or not. In it's simplest terms, a draft board is an order of players based on likelihood of success.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Rich7sena

[BayRaider]

1 hour ago, Jeremy408 said:

That’s exactly what it is. What’s your doing when you’re drafting someone is that you’re making an educated guess of how they’re going to turn out. 

You also have to account for value. You build championships according to value, not just take the highest rated players on your board. For example, if Malcolm Koonce is your #1 player on your entire board, above Trevor Lawrence or anyone, are the Jagaurs going to take him at #1 Overall? No. It'd be a horrendous value pick. 

Can anyone guarantee Koonce will be available the next Jaguar pick? No. It's called gambling and you need to be prepared to lose the player you love in order to play this game successfully. You take a chance he'll be at your next pick, or in-range of trading up for him at your next pick. For example, if you go into a car dealership, absolutely dead-set on a certain car and in-love with it, you are going to get the worst deal possible. You have to be willing to lose it, and be willing to walk away from it, to get the best deal and best value. 

This is seriously not rocket science folks. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by BayRaider

[Jeremy408]

13 minutes ago, Rich7sena said:

That's not how odds work. Just because a player can bust doesn't mean it's unknowable whether a player will be successful. Think of it this way: why are the vast majority of starting quarterbacks selected in the first round? If it were truly a crapshoot, then we wouldn't progressively lower hit rates on players as the draft progressed.

Vast majority of quarterbacks selected in the first round because of the importance of the position. Regardless if you don’t know how a quarterback is going to turn out you have to draft them high in order to have a chance to get a good one.  That’s why quarterbacks are always the most overdrafted position. 
 

Better question to ask is why are so many quarterbacks draft bust throughout history? As a matter fact why are most busts quarterbacks? Because when you’re drafting them you don’t know how they’re going to turn out. You’re hoping they turn out to be your franchise quarterback but you don’t know for sure otherwise there wouldn’t be so many busts

[Rich7sena]

2 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

You also have to account for value. You build championships according to value, not just take the highest rated players on your board. For example, if Malcolm Koonce is your #1 player on your entire board, above Trevor Lawrence or anyone, are the Jagaurs going to take him at #1 Overall? No. It'd be a horrendous value pick. 

Can anyone guarantee Koonce will be available the next Jaguar pick? No. It's called gambling and you need to be prepared to lose the player you love in order to play this game successfully. You take a chance he'll be at your next pick, or in-range of trading up for him at your next pick. For example, if you go into a car dealership, absolutely dead-set on a certain car and in-love with it, you are going to get the worst deal possible. You have to be willing to lose it, and be willing to walk away from it, to get the best deal and best value. 

This is seriously not rocket science folks. 

I have less issue in the Raiders taking players lower than their perceived value than what players they actually take. For example, I would have been fine with Cosmi at 17 but I'm not fine with Leatherwood. I suspect Cosmi would have been just as badly received (or worse) than Leatherwood based on perceived value. As it turns out, Cosmi would not have gone until the mid second, and it would have been "bad value" to take him at 17. However, I think Cosmi has All Pro potential and he has a safe floor so I wouldn't care.

[BayRaider]

2 hours ago, Dessie said:

So you were wrong then, why is it so hard to believe you are wrong now? You and others seem to think your opinion is definitive when it’s shown not to be.

Which reach has worked out so far...? I thought Ferrell wasn't a reach at the time (although basically everyone else did think it was a reach, I was basically You/Jeremy currently) but I was proven wrong that he was indeed a reach. 

However, which reach has worked out so far to give Mayock/Gruden the benefit of the doubt and not assume Leatherwood is yet another massive reach?

Plus Leatherwood the player isn't the main issue here. Although still an issue (didn't think he is talented enough as 1st Round Pick).  It's that they could have, in theory, more than likely traded up in the 2nd and got him just like they did Moehrig. Can we guarantee? No. But you have to gamble in the draft, and be willing to lose a player you love, in order to maximize your value. The Raiders are the only organization that could care less about draft value. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by BayRaider

[RaidersAreOne]

1 hour ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

You have this tweet?

 

[Rich7sena]

2 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

Vast majority of quarterbacks selected in the first round because of the importance of the position. Regardless if you don’t know how a quarterback is going to turn out you have to draft them high in order to have a chance to get a good one.  That’s why quarterbacks are always the most overdrafted position. 
 

Better question to ask is why are so many quarterbacks draft bust throughout history? As a matter fact why are most busts quarterbacks? Because when you’re drafting them you don’t know how they’re going to turn out. You’re hoping they turn out to be your franchise quarterback but you don’t know for sure otherwise there wouldn’t be so many busts

But how does that explain that the vast majority of starting quarterbacks are first rounders compared to the rest of the 6 rounds in the draft. If the draft was truly a crapshoot, wouldn't the distribution be more even?

And it's not a better to question to ask why there have been so many QB busts in history. The answer is simple: the NFL is a hard league to succeed in. The better question for you is why there have been more "busts" in the later rounds than in the first round. According to your logic, that the draft is a crapshoot, shouldn't the later rounds have the same success rate as the first round?