Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: QB's, the Rookie Cap, & Tannenhill

  1. #1
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default QB's, the Rookie Cap, & Tannenhill

    So, in the last few days, I've gone from being open to drafting Tannenhill... to being determined that he must be the pick. And it not from anything extra I've seen on film from a few days ago, and its not from any stats either.

    Its from me realizing that the value of the QB position in the draft has drastically changed... and its all b/c of the rookie cap.

    There have been a few arguments for drafting a guy like Tannenhill... and these arguments IMO have been based on an outdated way of thinking that dates back to before the rookie cap was implemented.

    When people say that Tannenhill isnt worth the 8th overall pick... most of the time its not b/c he doesnt have any of the tools/talent/ability/size you are looking for... as most agree that he has all of those qualities to be a franchise QB. The arguments mainly revolve around the fact that he still needs work and grooming due to his inexperience, and that he isnt ready to be thrown in right away (which I tend to agree with). But what I ask... whats wrong with sitting a QB for a year to groom? That never used to be that big of a deal. So, why did that change? Well, rookie QB's became so expensive, that teams literally couldnt afford not to be getting production from a player taking up such a significant portion of the cap. Even then, not long ago Carson Palmer was taken 1st overall, with 3+ years of experience, and sat the whole year to develop. And this is the deal he was on:

    Palmer can make roughly $40 million in bonuses and base salary over six years, with escalators that could take it to $49 million. He'll get $18.25 million in the first three years through bonuses and salary.
    And the salary cap per year in 2003? 75 million.

    Thats a ton of money. But it didnt stop there, and obviously spiraled out of control to contracts like Jamarcus Russell and Sam Bradford... and the risk on drafting a QB high became insane. If you didnt hit, your team was screwed for half a decade. And you certainly couldnt afford to pay $50mil guaranteed for a backup QB while he developed on the bench. You HAD to play him. However, an end was put to the madness with the rookie cap. Order was restored if you will... and hence... value in the draft has changed IMO.

    Last years 8th overall pick, QB Jake Locker, signed a 4 year 12 million dollar deal. Thats it. And the salary cap in 2011? 120 million. If you miss on that, its hardly difficult to get out from. So, now with the upside of having potential to be a franchise QB... a position that can make 10x more impact than any other position, especially in today's NFL... makes the reward now far greater than the risk. And with the rookie no longer taking up a huge portion of the cap, you can now afford to sit them for a year to actually groom and develop, especially in cases like a Tannenhill where the tools are there but the experience is lacking. And due to there being less risk... like last year with guys like Ponder, you are going to continue to see QBs go higher than they would have in previous drafts that didnt have the rookie cap.

    I dont think teams feel the pressure to play a rookie QB, other than fan chants, like the financial ones they felt previously. Now, some coaches will still feel the pressure to get immediate production from their rookie QB more than others (like say, Shannahan who is already on the hotseat and needs big things fast to save his job. He needs RG3 to play immediately, and play well. Hence the 50 visits they are doing with RG3 trying to teach him the playbook before hes even drafted). However, with a coach like Philbin with a built in honeymoon, who groomed Aaron Rogers for a couple of years before he got on the field... I believe he sees and understands the value of grooming a QB and not necessarily needing to throw him into the fire immediately.

    So, I guess I ask after all that... if we were to take Tannenhill with the plan and understanding of icing him for the year to groom behind Moore and develop (as I would like to see), and not be rushed into action like many believe that he isnt ready for, why would that be such a bad thing? Without the financial risk... isnt the potential of being a franchise QB to set your team up for years worth more than the opportunity cost of potentially missing on a good player at a different position (who also has a decent percentage of busting as well)?

    And that brings me to the next point. Due to Tannenhill's inexperience... there is definitely some added risk to drafting him vs. say someone like Luck who we've seen for 3+ years and know exactly what he is. With Tannenhill, there is more "projection" involved in drafting him b/c you havent seen it. And if you swing and miss on the QB, you are missing out on the opportunity cost of acquiring an impact player at another position. But, its not like the choice is between a risky QB, and a surefire lock impact player at another position (non-QB)... b/c that player at another position also carries a good chance of becoming a bust. Looking at the 8th overall pick since 2000, with Jake Locker selected last year, here are the players previously selected at 8 overall over the past 10 years, all of which were non-QBs.

    Rolando McClain - Jury still out, but promising
    Eugene Monroe - Jury still out, but has been pretty shakey
    Derrick Harvey - BUST
    Jamall Anderson - BUST. Has 7.5 sacks in 5 seasons, and is now on his 3rd team
    Donte Whitner - A gross disappointment, if not a BUST, according to Bills fans
    Antrel Rolle - A good player, on his 2nd team
    DeAngelo Hall - A talented but inconsistent player. On his 3rd/4th team now?
    Jordan Gross - A good player
    Roy Williams (Safety) - You decide whether to call him a bust. Was great as a SS for a year or 2, but quickly fizzled out
    David Terrell - BUST

    Pending on how you rate some of those players, theres a 40-60% chance of the player you select 8th overall of being a bust. And that is my point. They are ALL risks. Sure, a QB like Tannenhill may provide a little more risk than another player at a skill position... however, how much more risk than 40-60%? IMO, whatever extra risk comes with a QB like Tannenhill... the possible reward of being a franchise QB FAR exceeds that.

    I guess what I'm saying, is that I believe the traditional line of thinking of where a 50/50 "should go", is becoming outdated due to the implementation of the rookie cap... b/c you are no longer risking gambling a huge financial investment with only a 4 year 12mil deal. More and more often you are now going to see those 50/50 QB's go higher in the draft than where they "should have gone" in previous drafts without the cap... as the risk on them is plummeting, while simultaneously, the reward for one panning out is sky rocketing as the league becomes more and more about the QB position and the passing game.

  2. These 12 users offered FIST BUMPS to FinNasty for a solid post:


  3. #2
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default

    Well, I dont think theres even been an opportunity to see whether Jeff's values have changed based on the rookie cap... as the cap has only been in place for 1 draft... and 4 QBs went ahead of him. In fact, I'd wager that theres a chance Ireland may have seen the changes in the value first hand... if he was expecting Locker/Ponder to be on the board and saw them go higher that he probably thought possible...

  4. These 2 users offered FIST BUMPS to FinNasty for a solid post:


  5. #3
    Former Moderator GridIronKing34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Waterloo, Iowa
    Age
    25
    Posts
    21,335
    Fist Bumps
    5,820
    My Posts Inspired:
    13,109 Fist Bumps in 6,409 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    947

    Default

    Whitner was good in San Francisco this year.

  6. #4
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GridIronKing34 View Post
    Whitner was good in San Francisco this year.
    I wouldnt confuse being a good player with being on a good defense. Buffalo was hardly sad to let him go after being a disappointment for 5 years.

    Even if he had the best year of his career this season in SF... that level of play was hardly worth the 8th overall pick... and certainly isnt worth not rolling the dice on a QB for IMO...

  7. #5
    The Twisted Spork of Doom Jigsaw: Cherry Tomatoes Champion Atomica Champion Fin D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Age
    40
    Posts
    56,444
    Fist Bumps
    26,191
    My Posts Inspired:
    25,053 Fist Bumps in 10,596 Posts
    Rep Power
    1964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FinNasty View Post
    So, in the last few days, I've gone from being open to drafting Tannenhill... to being determined that he must be the pick. And it not from anything extra I've seen on film from a few days ago, and its not from any stats either.

    Its from me realizing that the value of the QB position in the draft has drastically changed... and its all b/c of the rookie cap.

    There have been a few arguments for drafting a guy like Tannenhill... and these arguments IMO have been based on an outdated way of thinking that dates back to before the rookie cap was implemented.

    When people say that Tannenhill isnt worth the 8th overall pick... most of the time its not b/c he doesnt have any of the tools/talent/ability/size you are looking for... as most agree that he has all of those qualities to be a franchise QB. The arguments mainly revolve around the fact that he still needs work and grooming due to his inexperience, and that he isnt ready to be thrown in right away (which I tend to agree with). But what I ask... whats wrong with sitting a QB for a year to groom? That never used to be that big of a deal. So, why did that change? Well, rookie QB's became so expensive, that teams literally couldnt afford not to be getting production from a player taking up such a significant portion of the cap. Even then, not long ago Carson Palmer was taken 1st overall, with 3+ years of experience, and sat the whole year to develop. And this is the deal he was on:



    And the salary cap per year in 2003? 75 million.

    Thats a ton of money. But it didnt stop there, and obviously spiraled out of control to contracts like Jamarcus Russell and Sam Bradford... and the risk on drafting a QB high became insane. If you didnt hit, your team was screwed for half a decade. And you certainly couldnt afford to pay $50mil guaranteed for a backup QB while he developed on the bench. You HAD to play him. However, an end was put to the madness with the rookie cap. Order was restored if you will... and hence... value in the draft has changed IMO.

    Last years 8th overall pick, QB Jake Locker, signed a 4 year 12 million dollar deal. Thats it. And the salary cap in 2011? 120 million. If you miss on that, its hardly difficult to get out from. So, now with the upside of having potential to be a franchise QB... a position that can make 10x more impact than any other position, especially in today's NFL... makes the reward now far greater than the risk. And with the rookie no longer taking up a huge portion of the cap, you can now afford to sit them for a year to actually groom and develop, especially in cases like a Tannenhill where the tools are there but the experience is lacking. And due to there being less risk... like last year with guys like Ponder, you are going to continue to see QBs go higher than they would have in previous drafts that didnt have the rookie cap.

    I dont think teams feel the pressure to play a rookie QB, other than fan chants, like the financial ones they felt previously. Now, some coaches will still feel the pressure to get immediate production from their rookie QB more than others (like say, Shannahan who is already on the hotseat and needs big things fast to save his job. He needs RG3 to play immediately, and play well. Hence the 50 visits they are doing with RG3 trying to teach him the playbook before hes even drafted). However, with a coach like Philbin with a built in honeymoon, who groomed Aaron Rogers for a couple of years before he got on the field... I believe he sees and understands the value of grooming a QB and not necessarily needing to throw him into the fire immediately.

    So, I guess I ask after all that... if we were to take Tannenhill with the plan and understanding of icing him for the year to groom behind Moore and develop (as I would like to see), and not be rushed into action like many believe that he isnt ready for, why would that be such a bad thing? Without the financial risk... isnt the potential of being a franchise QB to set your team up for years worth more than the opportunity cost of potentially missing on a good player at a different position (who also has a decent percentage of busting as well)?

    And that brings me to the next point. Due to Tannenhill's inexperience... there is definitely some added risk to drafting him vs. say someone like Luck who we've seen for 3+ years and know exactly what he is. With Tannenhill, there is more "projection" involved in drafting him b/c you havent seen it. And if you swing and miss on the QB, you are missing out on the opportunity cost of acquiring an impact player at another position. But, its not like the choice is between a risky QB, and a surefire lock impact player at another position (non-QB)... b/c that player at another position also carries a good chance of becoming a bust. Looking at the 8th overall pick since 2000, with Jake Locker selected last year, here are the players previously selected at 8 overall over the past 10 years, all of which were non-QBs.

    Rolando McClain - Jury still out, but promising
    Eugene Monroe - Jury still out, but has been pretty shakey
    Derrick Harvey - BUST
    Jamall Anderson - BUST. Has 7.5 sacks in 5 seasons, and is now on his 3rd team
    Donte Whitner - A gross disappointment, if not a BUST, according to Bills fans
    Antrel Rolle - A good player, on his 2nd team
    DeAngelo Hall - A talented but inconsistent player. On his 3rd/4th team now?
    Jordan Gross - A good player
    Roy Williams (Safety) - You decide whether to call him a bust. Was great as a SS for a year or 2, but quickly fizzled out
    David Terrell - BUST

    Pending on how you rate some of those players, theres a 40-60% chance of the player you select 8th overall of being a bust. And that is my point. They are ALL risks. Sure, a QB like Tannenhill may provide a little more risk than another player at a skill position... however, how much more risk than 40-60%? IMO, whatever extra risk comes with a QB like Tannenhill... the possible reward of being a franchise QB FAR exceeds that.

    I guess what I'm saying, is that I believe the traditional line of thinking of where a 50/50 "should go", is becoming outdated due to the implementation of the rookie cap... b/c you are no longer risking gambling a huge financial investment with only a 4 year 12mil deal. More and more often you are now going to see those 50/50 QB's go higher in the draft than where they "should have gone" in previous drafts without the cap... as the risk on them is plummeting, while simultaneously, the reward for one panning out is sky rocketing as the league becomes more and more about the QB position and the passing game.
    Thank god a respected poster finally made a thread about what I've been saying for a few weeks. Now maybe other posters will understand how draft value has changed.
    The Awesome Tree is as follows (and is inarguable):
    The Shat > Jack Palance > Samuel L. Jackson > Art Donovan > Bruce Campbell > Snoop Dog > Elvis > Chuck Norris > The Hoff




  8. This Member gave Fin D a FIST BUMP for this post:


  9. #6
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finascious D View Post
    Thank god a respected poster finally made a thread about what I've been saying for a few weeks. Now maybe other posters will understand how draft value has changed.
    It definitely has changed. And I think teams realized it the second the cap was implemented... as we saw those 4 QBs go in the top 12 last year. I think its going to take the general public/media a little longer to catch onto the trend... but that doesnt mean IMO that internally teams havent begun to view them quite different now.

  10. This Member gave FinNasty a FIST BUMP for this post:


  11. #7
    Nobody's Fart Catcher MonstBlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    19,404
    Fist Bumps
    8,456
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,427 Fist Bumps in 4,097 Posts
    Rep Power
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finascious D View Post
    Thank god a respected poster finally made a thread about what I've been saying for a few weeks. Now maybe other posters will understand how draft value has changed.
    Yet you spend the rest of your time in threads supporting a GM who up until this point has not shared your opinion on the value of the QB position. What will you think if Tannehill is available at #8 and Irish passes?

    The (FIRED) Pasty White Legs of Failure.





  12. #8
    Initiated Fin-Omenal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Age
    34
    Posts
    31,668
    Fist Bumps
    14,825
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,240 Fist Bumps in 4,801 Posts
    Rep Power
    782

    Default

    No, Whitner played pretty well...he isnt a pro bowler but he is a very solid player.

  13. #9
    The Twisted Spork of Doom Jigsaw: Cherry Tomatoes Champion Atomica Champion Fin D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Age
    40
    Posts
    56,444
    Fist Bumps
    26,191
    My Posts Inspired:
    25,053 Fist Bumps in 10,596 Posts
    Rep Power
    1964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MonstBlitz View Post
    Yet you spend the rest of your time in threads supporting a GM who up until this point has not shared your opinion on the value of the QB position. What will you think if Tannehill is available at #8 and Irish passes?
    I don't think there was a QB available last draft at our pick that was better than or had more upside than Moore.

    And I haven't been supporting Ireland as much as I've been saying I don't think we have enough info to pass judgement yet. You know for all this bull**** policing you do about people blasting others who don't agree with them, you sure do seem to have a habit of the same thing. I don't think the way you do and that Ireland should drawn and quartered, biut you take that to mean I'm his biggest fan. All I've really said is that we need to give him to the end of this coming season. Its like talking to a child.
    The Awesome Tree is as follows (and is inarguable):
    The Shat > Jack Palance > Samuel L. Jackson > Art Donovan > Bruce Campbell > Snoop Dog > Elvis > Chuck Norris > The Hoff




  14. #10
    Nobody's Fart Catcher MonstBlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    19,404
    Fist Bumps
    8,456
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,427 Fist Bumps in 4,097 Posts
    Rep Power
    648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finascious D View Post
    I don't think there was a QB available last draft at our pick that was better than or had more upside than Moore.

    And I haven't been supporting Ireland as much as I've been saying I don't think we have enough info to pass judgement yet. You know for all this bull**** policing you do about people blasting others who don't agree with them, you sure do seem to have a habit of the same thing. I don't think the way you do and that Ireland should drawn and quartered, biut you take that to mean I'm his biggest fan. All I've really said is that we need to give him to the end of this coming season. Its like talking to a child.
    You're very defensive about all this. I'm not mocking you, I just asked a simple question. You've defended Ireland from just about every criticism that's been thrown at him from posters here. If that's not support, I don't know what is. I'm not saying you're wrong for supporting him. I'm just wondering if you opinion of the man is going to change if he leaves Tannehill on the table at pick #8.

    The (FIRED) Pasty White Legs of Failure.





  15. #11
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MonstBlitz View Post
    Yet you spend the rest of your time in threads supporting a GM who up until this point has not shared your opinion on the value of the QB position. What will you think if Tannehill is available at #8 and Irish passes?
    Lets please not derail this thread into another Ireland debate... we have plenty of threads for those...

  16. #12
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fin-Omenal View Post
    No, Whitner played pretty well...he isnt a pro bowler but he is a very solid player.
    OK, so dont count him as a bust in that pool of players. I would still say that getting "solid player" who is not pro bowl caliber at the 8th overall pick is a disappointment though...

  17. #13
    Draft Forum Moderator ckparrothead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    52,708
    Fist Bumps
    7,853
    My Posts Inspired:
    59,346 Fist Bumps in 20,002 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    3642

    Default

    I think FinNasty is right in that the money change makes the whole issue of should I or should I not take X quarterback at #8 overall when I have no quarterbacks and X is really talented...becomes silly.

    Ben Volin says we're stuck with Tannehill for the next 3 years. Maybe THESE guys are. But if I were GM, I wouldn't be. If Tannehill blows chunks and we get #1 overall and Matt Barkley is on the board, who the hell is to say we can't pick Barkley. If I were the Vikings and I had Christian Ponder fresh off the #12 pick, and then this year I'm choosing #1 overall, you're damn right I'm taking Andrew Luck.

  18. These 4 users offered FIST BUMPS to ckparrothead for a solid post:


  19. #14
    The Twisted Spork of Doom Jigsaw: Cherry Tomatoes Champion Atomica Champion Fin D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Age
    40
    Posts
    56,444
    Fist Bumps
    26,191
    My Posts Inspired:
    25,053 Fist Bumps in 10,596 Posts
    Rep Power
    1964

    Default

    I'll post this again since it goes:

    The Awesome Tree is as follows (and is inarguable):
    The Shat > Jack Palance > Samuel L. Jackson > Art Donovan > Bruce Campbell > Snoop Dog > Elvis > Chuck Norris > The Hoff




  20. This Member gave Fin D a FIST BUMP for this post:


  21. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    524
    Fist Bumps
    75
    My Posts Inspired:
    70 Fist Bumps in 47 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    i think your example needs a bigger sample size. how about picks 8-15 instead of just saying the ****ty team that did ****ty enough to finish with the 8th pick made a **** pick.

  22. #16
    The Twisted Spork of Doom Jigsaw: Cherry Tomatoes Champion Atomica Champion Fin D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Age
    40
    Posts
    56,444
    Fist Bumps
    26,191
    My Posts Inspired:
    25,053 Fist Bumps in 10,596 Posts
    Rep Power
    1964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dsteve View Post
    i think your example needs a bigger sample size. how about picks 8-15 instead of just saying the ****ty team that did ****ty enough to finish with the 8th pick made a **** pick.
    Why? The argument is, is it worth to grab a Tanny at 8.
    The Awesome Tree is as follows (and is inarguable):
    The Shat > Jack Palance > Samuel L. Jackson > Art Donovan > Bruce Campbell > Snoop Dog > Elvis > Chuck Norris > The Hoff




  23. This Member gave Fin D a FIST BUMP for this post:


  24. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    524
    Fist Bumps
    75
    My Posts Inspired:
    70 Fist Bumps in 47 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    because it's reasonable to assume that the players a few picks back could have been picked at 8, the team picking 8 just missed them. it doesn't show the value of the 8 pick, it shows how badly those teams drafted and those teams being in that spot is prob a result of them drafting poorly.

  25. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    524
    Fist Bumps
    75
    My Posts Inspired:
    70 Fist Bumps in 47 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    btw, I'd pick him at 8 if I were the gm. if he ends up sucking then oh well, youll be in a good spot to try barkley next year.

  26. #19
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckparrothead View Post
    I think FinNasty is right in that the money change makes the whole issue of should I or should I not take X quarterback at #8 overall when I have no quarterbacks and X is really talented...becomes silly.

    Ben Volin says we're stuck with Tannehill for the next 3 years. Maybe THESE guys are. But if I were GM, I wouldn't be. If Tannehill blows chunks and we get #1 overall and Matt Barkley is on the board, who the hell is to say we can't pick Barkley. If I were the Vikings and I had Christian Ponder fresh off the #12 pick, and then this year I'm choosing #1 overall, you're damn right I'm taking Andrew Luck.
    Exactly. Nothing about drafting a QB makes you committed anymore. And certainly nothing would stop you from getting Barkley if you didnt have much confidence in Tannenhill after a year and believed Barkley was the real deal.


    Where as... the Rams had no choice but to stay with Bradford, even if they lacked confidence in him and thought RG3 was the truth. They had no choice but to sell the pick and try to put stuff around Bradford, b/c parting with him wasnt an option.

    Ah, I love the rookie cap...

  27. #20
    Finally... FinNasty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    12,561
    Fist Bumps
    3,400
    My Posts Inspired:
    8,505 Fist Bumps in 3,027 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dsteve View Post
    i think your example needs a bigger sample size. how about picks 8-15 instead of just saying the ****ty team that did ****ty enough to finish with the 8th pick made a **** pick.
    If you have the time, go for it man. If not, I may take a look at it in the next few days if I get some time. I dont doubt though that we will see a similar statistical probability of hitting on pick #11, or even pick #5 as we do pick #8. The draft is much more of a crapshoot than many make it out to be...

Similar Threads

  1. What if... It really was all about the QB position after all?
    By Bumrush in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-22-2011, 12:59 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 03:40 PM
  3. SS Position
    By phinfan0202 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 01-15-2008, 12:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •