MWil23 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Using that logic wouldn’t the quality GM’s be picking in the 20’s for the most part? More likely 30s while losing multiple 1st rounders due to league rules violations as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkronsWitness Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 12 hours ago, TheeRealDeal said: I'm not anti staying put at #4 at all. Unlike the stay at 4 at all cost crowd I am simply open minded about the situation. I can live with both outcomes. I am more worried about the selection than I am where it is being made. The Browns would do wise to focus on the same because trading down has never been our problem it has been the selection. Heck we have even tried trading up to #3 and fail, #6 was a failure, #22 failed twice. It is not where you pick it is who you pick and our scouting has been dreadful. I think the easy way to get around drafting a bust top is by just taking BPA. Don't take the guy who has a high ceiling but isn't there right now (Josh Allen), but take the closest thing to can't miss players (Barkley) that wouldnt make you look like a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, MWil23 said: More likely 30s while losing multiple 1st rounders due to league rules violations as well. I’m perfectly fine with that trade off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheeRealDeal Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, OttoGrahamsGhost said: So 8 times in the passed 28 years there have been some crappy players selected early. But there are also All-Pros and HOFers who have been selected there too. It all comes down to evaluation and development. Good things the Browns have a great track record with both of those. You obviously failed to see what I posted, or more likely chose to ignore the point of the post because it doesn't fit in line with your thinking. You thinking doesn't line up with history or facts. I hope our FO is smart enough to rely on facts and not opinions of draftniks like you. First of all I only went to 2010 because like it or not the more recent drafts are not settled. Jamies Winton and Sammy Watkins could very easily turn out bust. It is not like they have done anything special. Jamies Winston was overrated as a rookie and continues to slide ever since. Second I only posted years where BOTH players at 1 and 4 busted. I am sure you know that but wiggled your way around it to get try to get your opinion in. There are many more years where one of 1 or 4 busted. Just a few and I don't need to post anymore because the facts are out there for everyone to find. Quit being lazy with your opinions and do some research yourself. The very fact of them matter is that the bust rate of even Top 5 picks is less than 50% and you people act like we have a 90% sure thing at both picks. Andrew Luck at 1 but then Matt Kalil at #4 in 2012 Trent Williams 4th but Sam Bradford #1 in 2010 Matthew Stafford 1st but Aaron Curry #4 in 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 43 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Using that logic wouldn’t the quality GM’s be picking in the 20’s for the most part? New GMs take over bad teams all the time. The hypothesis would posit that the good ones select good players at a high rate and get their guys out of the dumpster, while the bad ones select bad players at a high rate and keep their team in the bottom half of the league. Teams also occasionally have rashes of injuries that just decimate the team and cause issues even if they were decently built. I’d bet that the guys who miss on early firsts are generally missing on their other picks. Guys who hit on them may just be getting some luck with obvious selections being obvious, so it’s harder to see whether they’re good or bad, but a good GM is generally going to catch the good ones. If Dorsey is actually good, I think your hit rate on those picks is going to be significantly higher than the raw numbers show. But if he’s bad.... there’s a good chance it’s much worse than those numbers show. Just gotta decide whether you think he’s good enough to turn your team around. If he is, he’ll more than likely get good value from those picks. It doesn’t mean he’ll get them all, but if you give him the ammo, he’ll get you the players - assuming he’s actually good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OttoGrahamsGhost Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, TheeRealDeal said: You obviously failed to see what I posted, or more likely chose to ignore the point of the post because it doesn't fit in line with your thinking. You thinking doesn't line up with history or facts. I hope our FO is smart enough to rely on facts and not opinions of draftniks like you. First of all I only went to 2010 because like it or not the more recent drafts are not settled. Jamies Winton and Sammy Watkins could very easily turn out bust. It is not like they have done anything special. Jamies Winston was overrated as a rookie and continues to slide ever since. Second I only posted years where BOTH players at 1 and 4 busted. I am sure you know that but wiggled your way around it to get try to get your opinion in. There are many more years where one of 1 or 4 busted. Just a few and I don't need to post anymore because the facts are out there for everyone to find. Quit being lazy with your opinions and do some research yourself. The very fact of them matter is that the bust rate of even Top 5 picks is less than 50% and you people act like we have a 90% sure thing at both picks. Andrew Luck at 1 but then Matt Kalil at #4 in 2012 Trent Williams 4th but Sam Bradford #1 in 2010 Matthew Stafford 1st but Aaron Curry #4 in 2009 Why limit it to the #1 and #4 pick? Are those spots slotted for certain individuals. I am sure I could go through several drafts and find multiple individuals who did not bust. Saying that the history of picks at 1 and 4 are reason enough for the Browns not to select at 1 and 4 are just as ridiculous as not picking a QB at 22. Each player is different and a draft position does not determine if they are going to bust or not. If it did then we should just trade all of our picks for veterans because there are players at every pick who have busted. As I stated it comes down to evaluation and development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheeRealDeal Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, OttoGrahamsGhost said: Why limit it to the #1 and #4 pick? Are those spots slotted for certain individuals. I am sure I could go through several drafts and find multiple individuals who did not bust. Saying that the history of picks at 1 and 4 are reason enough for the Browns not to select at 1 and 4 are just as ridiculous as not picking a QB at 22. Each player is different and a draft position does not determine if they are going to bust or not. If it did then we should just trade all of our picks for veterans because there are players at every pick who have busted. As I stated it comes down to evaluation and development. Are you that dense? or are you just trying to argue? Either way this conversation is no longer worth my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big poppa pump Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 I'll take my chances at the top of the draft, rather than hope the extra picks we gain (that are not likely as high) will produce. People like to point out that the trade downs from the past were great, but the execution was poor. There may be some merit to that, but recent history shows us that neither picking high, nor trading down and accumulating picks, has been very successful. I would prefer to take the higher rated prospects, and worry about future picks....in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OttoGrahamsGhost Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 39 minutes ago, TheeRealDeal said: Are you that dense? or are you just trying to argue? Either way this conversation is no longer worth my time. Ok buddy. Good talk. Never pick at #1 or #4 ever again because they bust. I got your argument. Have a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, iPwn said: New GMs take over bad teams all the time. The hypothesis would posit that the good ones select good players at a high rate and get their guys out of the dumpster, while the bad ones select bad players at a high rate and keep their team in the bottom half of the league. Teams also occasionally have rashes of injuries that just decimate the team and cause issues even if they were decently built. Fair point. 1 hour ago, iPwn said: I’d bet that the guys who miss on early firsts are generally missing on their other picks. Guys who hit on them may just be getting some luck with obvious selections being obvious, so it’s harder to see whether they’re good or bad, but a good GM is generally going to catch the good ones. If Dorsey is actually good, I think your hit rate on those picks is going to be significantly higher than the raw numbers show. But if he’s bad.... there’s a good chance it’s much worse than those numbers show. Just gotta decide whether you think he’s good enough to turn your team around. If he is, he’ll more than likely get good value from those picks. It doesn’t mean he’ll get them all, but if you give him the ammo, he’ll get you the players - assuming he’s actually good. I’m generally not of the opinion that certain guys are “great at spotting talent”. Better than some? Sure, but generally GM’s hit on half of their picks. https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8516007/nfl-draft-economics This is a link I’ve shared a bunch of times here in our forum, but you may have never seen it. This is my general philosophy on drafting. I think a particular team being able to use the draft to their benefit well is as much about having the right coaches and system in place, continuity, a plan to develop players and a strong talent base surrounding the picks as it is a GM “spotting talent”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheeRealDeal Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 20 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Fair point. I’m generally not of the opinion that certain guys are “great at spotting talent”. Better than some? Sure, but generally GM’s hit on half of their picks. https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8516007/nfl-draft-economics This is a link I’ve shared a bunch of times here in our forum, but you may have never seen it. This is my general philosophy on drafting. I think a particular team being able to use the draft to their benefit well is as much about having the right coaches and system in place, continuity, a plan to develop players and a strong talent base surrounding the picks as it is a GM “spotting talent”. His point has some validity but it is marginal. It doesn't matter even the greatest of GMs the hit rate is still less than 50% and it really doesn't matter how high or low the pick really. Ozzie Newsome had a ridiculous run to start his career in Baltimore picking 7 Pro Bowlers and only 2 bust in his first 7 draft and first 9 1st round picks. It didn't matter high Ogden/Boulware or Jamal, or how low Reed/Heap/Ray Lewis. The greatest GM of our time has picked #10 4 times and he has netted Chris McAllister, Terrell Suggs, Duane Starks and Travis Taylor. A dead even 50% split between pro bowler. All these anti-trade down poster can piss and moan all they want and ignore the facts all they want but history and fact prove we have a better chance at finding more talent because of the Carson Wentz trade and last years trade down from #12 which gives up Jabrill Peppers and #4 overall this year. I'd take my chances on that over 1 single pick at #12. And I would continue the cycle with #4 this year if we get the right deal. I'm not advocating trading down at all cost. I wouldn't do something stupid like Oakland did with Miami a few years ago trading #3 all the way down to #12 for only a 2nd rounder, but if we get fair value I'm taking the trade down every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big poppa pump Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, TheeRealDeal said: His point has some validity but it is marginal. It doesn't matter even the greatest of GMs the hit rate is still less than 50% and it really doesn't matter how high or low the pick really. Ozzie Newsome had a ridiculous run to start his career in Baltimore picking 7 Pro Bowlers and only 2 bust in his first 7 draft and first 9 1st round picks. It didn't matter high Ogden/Boulware or Jamal, or how low Reed/Heap/Ray Lewis. The greatest GM of our time has picked #10 4 times and he has netted Chris McAllister, Terrell Suggs, Duane Starks and Travis Taylor. A dead even 50% split between pro bowler. All these anti-trade down poster can piss and moan all they want and ignore the facts all they want but history and fact prove we have a better chance at finding more talent because of the Carson Wentz trade and last years trade down from #12 which gives up Jabrill Peppers and #4 overall this year. I'd take my chances on that over 1 single pick at #12. And I would continue the cycle with #4 this year if we get the right deal. I'm not advocating trading down at all cost. I wouldn't do something stupid like Oakland did with Miami a few years ago trading #3 all the way down to #12 for only a 2nd rounder, but if we get fair value I'm taking the trade down every time. It's funny how you mention the Carson Wentz trade. We would actually be a much better team right now, and for the future, if we just drafted Carson Wentz. Stupid argument..... "sighs as he waits for the Carson Wentz wouldn't be as good here as he is in Philly" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 35 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Fair point. I’m generally not of the opinion that certain guys are “great at spotting talent”. Better than some? Sure, but generally GM’s hit on half of their picks. https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8516007/nfl-draft-economics This is a link I’ve shared a bunch of times here in our forum, but you may have never seen it. This is my general philosophy on drafting. I understand risk diversification. I agree with the principle under a lot of scenarios. I don’t - however - think league averages are the best way to look at risk associations as a whole when certain staffs are just better at finding talent they can ultimately develop. A lot of guys picking top 5 are picking top 5 because they’re bad at creating a team, so they’re going to screw up those picks. I think you have to create different model for “quality of GM” and then slot Dorsey appropriately. Probably too much work to actually go through, but the idea that 45% of top 5 picks (or whatever the percent is) fail kinda misses that certain teams are going to have a 40% success rate while others are going to have a 70% success rate when talking about players with that much perceived scouted ability. 44 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: I think a particular team being able to use the draft to their benefit well is as much about having the right coaches and system in place, continuity, a plan to develop players and a strong talent base surrounding the picks as it is a GM “spotting talent”. I oversimplified “good GM” for the basis of this discussion, but most all of this fits under the umbrella of what I meant. Teams that have good resources will find a player that they can make work at a far higher rate than those who don’t have good resources in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistakey Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 hour ago, big poppa pump said: I'll take my chances at the top of the draft, rather than hope the extra picks we gain (that are not likely as high) will produce. People like to point out that the trade downs from the past were great, but the execution was poor. There may be some merit to that, but recent history shows us that neither picking high, nor trading down and accumulating picks, has been very successful. I would prefer to take the higher rated prospects, and worry about future picks....in the future. you only get to worry about this extra high pick because you worried about the future picks in the past you cant talk about good success with this extra high pick while calling the strategy a failure in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, mistakey said: you only get to worry about this extra high pick because you worried about the future picks in the past you cant talk about good success with this extra high pick while calling the strategy a failure in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.