This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If your referring to Mike Williams, or Charlie Rogers there were character concerns.Troy Williamson was a product of pre draft hype.Calvin Johnson is the closest thing to a sure thing.Yes, because WR's drafted early in the 1st round are a sure thing.
Maybe he's referring to one of these guys:List of top 10 WR's since 1992If your referring to Mike Williams, or Charlie Rogers there were character concerns.Troy Williamson was a product of pre draft hype.Calvin Johnson is the closest thing to a sure thing.Yes, because WR's drafted early in the 1st round are a sure thing.
esmond Howard #4 Curtis Conway #7 Michael Westbrook #4 Joey Galloway #8 JJ Stokes #10 Keyshawn Johnson #1 Terry Glenn #7 Ike Hilliard #7 Torry Holt #6 David Boston #8 Peter Warrick #4 Plaxico Burress #8 Travis Taylor #10 David Terrell #8 Koren Robinson #9 Charles Rogers #2 Andre Johnson #3 Larry Fitzgerald #3 Roy Williams #7 Reggie Williams #9 Braylon Edwards #3 Troy Williamson #7 Mike Williams #10
Or Michael Westbrook . . . or Peter Warrick . . . or Koren Robinson . . . or Desmond Howard . . . or Daunte Stallworth, . . . or Reggie Williams . . . or Rod Gardner . . . or Travis Taylor . . . or David Boston . . . or Troy Edwards . . . or Kevin Dyson . . . or Ike Hilliard . . . or Yatil Green . . . or Reidel Anthony . . . or JJ Stokes . . .If your referring to Mike Williams, or Charlie Rogers there were character concerns.Troy Williamson was a product of pre draft hype.Calvin Johnson is the closest thing to a sure thing.Yes, because WR's drafted early in the 1st round are a sure thing.
EDIT: eh, massraider beat me to it. 
By my very rough count, I see 8 WRs who played very well, 7 who busted, 8 who were ok if only for a short time. Not a bad rate overall. Only one who looks like a HOFer at this time, so that's disapointing.Torry Holt #6 Joey Galloway #8 Keyshawn Johnson #1 Terry Glenn #7 Plaxico Burress #8 Andre Johnson #3 Larry Fitzgerald #3 Roy Williams #7 Braylon Edwards #3 Curtis Conway #7 Michael Westbrook #4 Ike Hilliard #7 David Boston #8 Peter Warrick #4 Reggie Williams #9 Koren Robinson #9 Desmond Howard #4 - although he was a Super Bowl MVPJJ Stokes #10 Travis Taylor #10 David Terrell #8 Charles Rogers #2 Troy Williamson #7 Mike Williams #10Maybe he's referring to one of these guys:List of top 10 WR's since 1992If your referring to Mike Williams, or Charlie Rogers there were character concerns.Troy Williamson was a product of pre draft hype.Calvin Johnson is the closest thing to a sure thing.Yes, because WR's drafted early in the 1st round are a sure thing.
Why does Detroit need Michael Turner?Hes not the right type of RB for Martz's offense, and Kevin Jones is supposedly going to be ready for week 1, but even if hes not, he'll be ready at some point next year and into the future. Easy enough to find a RB to pick up snaps if hes not ready, and they have Brian Calhoun also coming back from an ACL injury he suffered in early November. No need to give up so much for Turner.
Agreed. Cleveland OTOH...
True, that would be a better fit.
And this would be a dream scenario for San Diego because . . .
There were not big character concerns about Rogers--most people believed him when he said the drug test was an accident (drank too much water).And Keyshawn Johnson?Travis Taylor?Reggie Williams?Donte Stallworth?David Terrell?There have been lots of highly drafted WR's, not all of whom have had character concerns.Remember, there really was a time when David Terrell was the best prospect since Randy Moss, and there really was a time when Charles Rogers was the best prospect since Randy Moss (Rogers was probably a better prospect than Fitzgerald, but it was pretty close).If your referring to Mike Williams, or Charlie Rogers there were character concerns.Troy Williamson was a product of pre draft hype.Calvin Johnson is the closest thing to a sure thing.Yes, because WR's drafted early in the 1st round are a sure thing.
You wouldnt give up two 1s and a 2 for the top rated player in the draft if you were SD?
No, probably not.I'm a Patriots fan. We've got Seattle's 1st round pick this year. If the Pats win the Super Bowl, that would give us the 22nd (or so, I think) pick, along with the 32nd pick. I wouldn't even trade those two picks for the top pick in the draft, and that's before you even consider the 2nd round pick.You wouldnt give up two 1s and a 2 for the top rated player in the draft if you were SD?
Could not disagree more.In fact, I can pretty much guarantee the Patriots wouldn't. I'm sure there are plenty of others that also would not.In 2004, the Patriots selected Vince Wilfork 21st and Ben Watson 32nd. Name one player that would've been worth moving up for from New England's perspective, even without throwing in the 2nd round pick they'd also have to give up.
I was rather enjoying diesel being both right and alone. He gets testy sometimes, and I was anxiously waiting for his attitude to make this thread more intertaining, but no, you gotta go agreeing with him and blow it.Sigmund Bloom said:diesel7982 said:The correct answer.
Obviously you've never seen the NFL pick value chart.#1 3000#2 2600#3 2200...#21 800..#32 590The value of the ability to take one of the two best players in the entire draft class is enormous.Borat said:
There will be many opportunities in the future. I'll practice more restraint next time.I was rather enjoying diesel being both right and alone. He gets testy sometimes, and I was anxiously waiting for his attitude to make this thread more intertaining, but no, you gotta go agreeing with him and blow it.Sigmund Bloom said:diesel7982 said:
This may come as a complete surprise to some of you, but some teams (gasp!) don't take the NFL pick value chart as gospel. Some teams look at what's best for their particular team. This isn't a fantasy draft. Some teams are better off with two lower first-rounders than one top-2 pick.Remember the rumors that the Pats were going to trade both 1st rounders so they could pick Sean Taylor? The Pats came out after the draft and acknowledged that they turned down offers to package both #1 picks to move up. So again, regardless of what your NFL pick value chart says, I challenge you to name a player taken ahead of Wilfork in that draft who would've made sense for the Patriots, even looking back at things now, knowing how the players have turned out up to this point. You can't do it. Not one player would have been worth it to the Pats. That's why the NFL pick value chart is a guidance tool, not the be-all-and-end-all of every team's strategy.
So some teams would be better off with the 2nd overall rather than 2 late 1st rounders?
Absolutely. For example, teams in need of a quarterback might have been better off trading up to take Rivers or Roethlisberger in that particular draft. Or maybe teams in dire need of a CB might have been well off to trade up for DeAngelo Hall. Jonathan Vilma or Tommie Harris may also have been worth two #1's for the right team. But for the Patriots, getting Wilfork and Watson together makes a lot more sense than getting any of those other guys alone.That's why the blanket statement "...every team in the NFL drafting 15 or lower would give up 2 1sts and a 2nd to move into the top 2," is completely false.
this is somewhat conflating different points... bloom was talking about how good a value it would be to get a top two pick...you used sean taylor to illustrate your point... but he wasn't a top two pick... the value of a top two pick & one outside of top 5 is far different... you couldn't get the second pick for a five straight up... even more so for something like 20th & 30th pick... anyways, even to use your example, it doesn't really illustrate the point you thought it did, because we don't know what belichick would have done if he could have parlayed them into the #2 overall... he may well have jumped at the opportunity... & even if he didn't, i'm guessing most teams would...as to the challenge... larry fitzgerald would arguably make the NE passing attack far more dangerous... and an overall better team... they might give up more points, but i think on balance boosted scoring would more than compensate... fitzgerald has a chance to be the best WRs of his generation (most receptions - first two years in NFL history, one of top collegiate WR prospects ever)... can we say the same about wilfork or watson, at their respective positions?* the bonus plan is that fitz would be a belichick player par excellance... smart, isn't a problem, hard working, team player, receptive to being coached up, etc... he pretty much fits all their criteria... taylor, on the other hand...
How is it a "value" when it's not what's best for your team?The Patriots were simply better off with their two lower 1st rounders than they would have been with the one top-2 pick. Fitzgerald is a nice player, but there is just no way he would have been worth a true 3-4 nose in Wilfork plus an athletic TE like Watson - let alone the 2nd round pick they also would have had to include (a pick which the Patriots admittedly squandered on Marquise Hill).Keep in mind that at the time, the Pats had emerging WRs Deion Branch and David Givens, reliable veterans Troy Brown and David Patten, and Bethel Johnson, who showed some degree of promise and was not yet a bust at the time. Even though Fitzgerald is head and shoulders above any of these receivers, in the Patriots' particular situation, there was no desperate need for a WR. So would they have been better off with Fitzgerald than both Wilfork and Watson (or even Wilfork alone, for that matter)? Of course not. Understand that the nose tackle is quite possibly the most important player on the field in a successful 3-4 defense.Maybe in some people's opinion, they'd rather have that top-2 pick than two lower 1st rounders and a 2nd, but it's ridiculous to think that every team in the NFL would jump at that trade. Some teams are better off making that trade, but others are not.If, for example, this year's top 2 players in the draft were likely going to be a QB and a RB, because those two players were the top two on just about everyone's board, why would a team like the Patriots, Saints, Steelers, Bengals, Colts or Chargers even consider making that trade?It's a team by team, year by year, case by case decision to make. No responsible team in the NFL blindly lives and dies with that draft pick value chart.this is somewhat conflating different points... bloom was talking about how good a value it would be to get a top two pick...you used sean taylor to illustrate your point... but he wasn't a top two pick... the value of a top two pick & one outside of top 5 is far different... you couldn't get the second pick for a five straight up... even more so for something like 20th & 30th pick... anyways, even to use your example, it doesn't really illustrate the point you thought it did, because we don't know what belichick would have done if he could have parlayed them into the #2 overall... he may well have jumped at the opportunity... & even if he didn't, i'm guessing most teams would...as to the challenge... larry fitzgerald would arguably make the NE passing attack far more dangerous... and an overall better team... they might give up more points, but i think on balance boosted scoring would more than compensate... fitzgerald has a chance to be the best WRs of his generation (most receptions - first two years in NFL history, one of top collegiate WR prospects ever)... can we say the same about wilfork or watson, at their respective positions?* the bonus plan is that fitz would be a belichick player par excellance... smart, isn't a problem, hard working, team player, receptive to being coached up, etc... he pretty much fits all their criteria... taylor, on the other hand...
Would actually be a great pick for them. Of course that means they won't do that now.Da Guru said:
No one is saying that teams will blindly consult the chart to make decisions, but it should guide you in finding rough equivalencies.Sure, you may not be interested in the consensus top 2 players in the draft because of their positions, or some other reason, but the PVC will give you the guidelines for what it would take to get one of those picks. Two late firsts and a 2nd would get laughed at. That's all I was trying to say.You're saying, "I don't want a Rolls Royce because it's better for me to spend my 75,000 on a nice truck and SUV, which I need more than a Rolls Royce." I'm saying, "75,000 won't buy you a Rolls Royce".
In less than a week I've spun 180 degrees on this pick (Calvin Johnson to the Lions), from fear and loathing to hopeful anticipation that Millen can overcome the stigma of drafting yet another WR early in the first round. CJ would look good in Honolulu Blue and Silver.
Right and alone is a position Im used to on this board. And Bloom is likely right, there will be plenty of opportunities in the future.I was rather enjoying diesel being both right and alone. He gets testy sometimes, and I was anxiously waiting for his attitude to make this thread more intertaining, but no, you gotta go agreeing with him and blow it.Sigmund Bloom said:diesel7982 said:The correct answer.
I would say 31 of 32 NFL GMs would be on my side here, the lone exception being Millen...not that he wouldnt likely agree, but I dont feel comfortable predicting his behavior.
A fair question. Lets replace Calvin Johnson with the WR hes often compared to, Larry Fitzgerald.
yes. People are getting caught up on the position - high picks at every position bust. I feel confident that Johnson will grade out as a once every 3-5 years kind of WR prospect, and be more than worth the typical value of the #2 overall pick.
good value to get a 1.2, vs a later pick like sean taylor, which was the first player you used to illustrate your point... you skipped over that part...the pats aren't necessarily simply better off... i appreciate that is your opinion, but i think you might be missing something... there are some embedded assumptions we should drag out & examine...fitzgerald is a "nice" player... jerry rice was a "nice" WR, too... tom brady is a "nice" QB... fitzgerald, as i noted above, has the league record for receptions in his first two years... you aren't considering the possibility that they might give up 1 more point without wilfork, but score two more with fitzgerald... also, with belichick & pioli being the best in the league at identifying value & their kind of players up & down the draft, why assume they couldn't have found another NT that could have fit into their system? was wilfork the only player in the nation that could play that position? from the 04, 05 or 06 drafts?you cited branch, givens, patten & bethel johnson as emerging, reliable & promising WRs... the pats valued these guys enough to let them walk (they recouped a pick for branch)... i'm pretty sure they wouldn't let fitzgerald walk... a NT is important in a 3-4, but again, you are assuming belichick couldn't have found one later... i can think of at least three defenders arguably more important than wilfork since he was drafted... richard seymour, tedy bruschi & a healthy rodney harrison... i might adde vrabel to that list... so he might be the 4th-5th most important defender... this also isn't addressing the fact that wilfork is playing better in year three, but he wasn't always this consistent & playing at such a high level in the past...someone in the thread said every team would make the move, & somehow that has become the emphasis in the discussion... just to be clear, i think your language is too vague when you say getting the two for lesser value would be good for some teams & not others... the way you phrased it, that could mean 50/50? if teams could go off the value chart & jump up a half dozen spots without paying for it (your sean taylor example missed this point, because he wasn't a top two pick)... just for the record, imo nearly every team would jump at the chance... so maybe borat's team wouldn't, but is that very relevant if nearly all the 31 other teams went by the chart? its one thing in the abstract to say you would rather have wilfork & watson (who hasn't developed as well as expected)... but in the real world, since the development of the value chart by jimmy johnson, can we find a single instance where a team gave away a top two pick for a couple mid-first rounders (obviously this is a limited set of opportunities... many top 2 teams didn't want to trade down, & in most years few if any teams have two mid-first round picks)? if top two prospects were QB & RB... could some of the teams you cited (NE, NO, PIT, CIN, IND & SD) use the third highest graded prospect in the entire draft... especially since they didn't have to pay for it by the value chart? calvin johnson (one of best WR prospects in past decade with moss & fitz)... joe thomas (potential franchise LT)... ? again, to conclude by saying year by year, team by team & case by case is your opinion but not imo representative of most teams... MOST teams (i'm phrasing it stronger than you on purpose, still leaving open the possibility that team borat would rather have the short end of the value stick) would jump at the chance to get a top two pick... IF they didn't have to pay for it by the value chart...* lets flip it around... if you were right, & belichick had been the one with the top 2 pick, given your stance you would probably be forced to conclude he would be happy to cough up the 1.2 (with which he could have gotten fitzgerald... or roy williams) to get the 1.20 & 1.30 (wilfork & watson) & thereby blow up the value chart conventions... its not at all clear that he would do this, yet you treated it from the mirror image reverse angle (moving up instead of down) as a known fact that of course he wouldn't do that...** point taken that certain teams don't need certain positions on any given draft... but over just past half decade, top two pick/s could have netted players like LT, fitzgerald & julius peppers... you are talking about among the best players in the league overall at any position, & potential HoFers... i'd much rather have one of them than an above average NT and a pretty good but flawed TE...don't get me wrong, i'm not dissing NTs (especially in context of a 3-4)... the rams would have been much better in the past if they had guy like ted washington at DT... but they would be even scarier with players like LT (instead of jackson), fitzgerald (with holt - ouch) & peppers (nice bookend with little)...you may be underestimating just how valuble players like LT, fitz & peppers can be... if you are shorting their importance & value, it is easier to see why our wires are getting crossed & we can't agree on fundamental questions about the value equation & worth of picks...*** there are cases where it may not make sense to move up, & get one great player instead of two pretty good ones... in a draft where there are not a few standouts at the top, i agree it wouldn't make sense for many teams (in that case, by definition, there may not be or have been a great player)... but in a draft with a few standouts, & if i understand you right, than i disagree & still think it would usually be the smart & right play to give up two lesser talents for the elite, blue chip, among best in the league at their respective position AND overall, prospective future HoFer like LT, palmer, fitz &/or peppers... especially with the caveat & proviso... IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT (which is one of the points you are disputing)...How is it a "value" when it's not what's best for your team?The Patriots were simply better off with their two lower 1st rounders than they would have been with the one top-2 pick. Fitzgerald is a nice player, but there is just no way he would have been worth a true 3-4 nose in Wilfork plus an athletic TE like Watson - let alone the 2nd round pick they also would have had to include (a pick which the Patriots admittedly squandered on Marquise Hill).Keep in mind that at the time, the Pats had emerging WRs Deion Branch and David Givens, reliable veterans Troy Brown and David Patten, and Bethel Johnson, who showed some degree of promise and was not yet a bust at the time. Even though Fitzgerald is head and shoulders above any of these receivers, in the Patriots' particular situation, there was no desperate need for a WR. So would they have been better off with Fitzgerald than both Wilfork and Watson (or even Wilfork alone, for that matter)? Of course not. Understand that the nose tackle is quite possibly the most important player on the field in a successful 3-4 defense.Maybe in some people's opinion, they'd rather have that top-2 pick than two lower 1st rounders and a 2nd, but it's ridiculous to think that every team in the NFL would jump at that trade. Some teams are better off making that trade, but others are not.If, for example, this year's top 2 players in the draft were likely going to be a QB and a RB, because those two players were the top two on just about everyone's board, why would a team like the Patriots, Saints, Steelers, Bengals, Colts or Chargers even consider making that trade?It's a team by team, year by year, case by case decision to make. No responsible team in the NFL blindly lives and dies with that draft pick value chart.this is somewhat conflating different points... bloom was talking about how good a value it would be to get a top two pick...you used sean taylor to illustrate your point... but he wasn't a top two pick... the value of a top two pick & one outside of top 5 is far different... you couldn't get the second pick for a five straight up... even more so for something like 20th & 30th pick... anyways, even to use your example, it doesn't really illustrate the point you thought it did, because we don't know what belichick would have done if he could have parlayed them into the #2 overall... he may well have jumped at the opportunity... & even if he didn't, i'm guessing most teams would...as to the challenge... larry fitzgerald would arguably make the NE passing attack far more dangerous... and an overall better team... they might give up more points, but i think on balance boosted scoring would more than compensate... fitzgerald has a chance to be the best WRs of his generation (most receptions - first two years in NFL history, one of top collegiate WR prospects ever)... can we say the same about wilfork or watson, at their respective positions?* the bonus plan is that fitz would be a belichick player par excellance... smart, isn't a problem, hard working, team player, receptive to being coached up, etc... he pretty much fits all their criteria... taylor, on the other hand...
