Do you just ignore and skip over the posts that prove your repeating wrong or do you read them, but not reply?
Dan, you have made no specific points worth responding to other than "give him more time" and "he looks fine".
It's fine if in your world every first round pick is an immediate impact player, however, you should understand that in the real world that the rest of us inhabit, that is not the case. Don't half of all first round picks bust?
Just because half of first round picks bust, doesnt mean thats how its supposed to be, or that you should lower your expectations to match the failure rate. The expectation is that 1st round picks should be ready to contribute and have an impact right away. If that doesn't happen then its an underperformance in terms of talent evaluation, failure should not be what you expect. What you are saying is like lowering the passing grade in a class just because half the class is failing.
Absolutely..part of critiquing Harris like I said, is to evaluate the front office..it behooves us to keep track of their record.
lol...I don't think you understand. No one, except a few dreamers, expect a 1st round player to be an immediate impact player. This isn't lowering expectations. Does it happen sometimes? Yes, but it's usually not the case. Know I hope the light turns on for Harris and he becomes a starter this year and get 20 sacks with 100 tackles and 6 INT's. Most likely won't happen and that's reality.
Well.. if you're rational, expectations DO get lowered with a higher failure rate. By definition basically. "Expect" even in colloquial speech refers to "believe something is likely to occur", and if you're rational and see a higher failure rate, then you'll definitely lower your expectations. Only if you're irrational will you disregard new information and keep expectations unchanged with higher failure rate. The question of how to optimally change expectations given a set of observations takes you into mathematics, and indeed you find that the words "expectation" and "expected value" have become technical terms that specify the calculations necessary to minimize the difference between "expected" and actual observations. Turns out that calculation is just a weighted mean where the weights are the probabilities of each possible event occurring.
Yes well this is not mathematics, if you want to ge technical with the terms lets replace the word expectation with goal. The goal in the first round is to get an impact player who can contribute right away. If you dont do that you are not getting a passing grade in my book. Again its similar to a test, you either grade it on a curve or you grade straight up. The teams goal in the first round should be to get an immediate impact player. Even second round picks should be players who can compete for starting jobs. Developmental project prospects who are not ready to start anytime soon should be reserved for the third round and above.
I read an article saying Harris had the lightbulb come on before the Minny game. he was mad he had no sacks and he was going to dominate. so we should be fine.
Of course it's valid. Not all first round picks make an immediate impact. It's very conceivable that a GM would take a guy at 22 that they really like, based on potential, that may really be more of a second round pick due to current development, because they believe he won't be there when they pick in the second. However, my point with the last sentence is to show that not every pick in the first round makes an immediate impact, and that expecting that is simply not reasonable. Now, if you want to argue that your first round pick should turn into a quality starter I their first three years, I'd be more agreeable to that as an expectation, even though even that flies against reality.
You can shoot for it. It's different strategies, like who should be #1 overall. A surefire starter, or a someone slightly raw but ridiculous ceiling? Each GM has a different take and the strategy has changed with the rookie cap. A team that is stacked can arguably take developmental players and one that needs help opposite, etc. Yes, not every pick in the first round makes an immediate impact, and not every pick is even half good. But you still can shoot for your target.
He's in our starting rotation and getting compared to Andre Branch and Marco Coleman... both long time starters in this league, and he has shown an impact in games, he's just not getting sacks. That said, even guys like Wake only average 1 sack every other game or so. Vic Beasley was considered a bust in Atlanta his rookie season with 5 sacks. He exploded in year 2 with 15.5. I'm as disappointed as anyone in what I've seen of Harris as far as not getting at least 1 sack, but I've also seen enough to believe he's going to do fine once he gets stronger and understands playing DE at this level. Right not he looks lost and like he's pressing. Let's see where he's at at mid-season. Hopefully, he'll have a better repertoire of moves and ability by the time we face the Pats.
I'm not disappointed he hasn't had a sack, in pre-season. If by the end of his rookie year he doesn't have a sack, I'll start to furrow my brows
I would expect the top 5, probably 10, picks to be immediate impact guys. Lower half of round one? Not necessarily. There's too many pieces to the equation.
Unless you are a QB or deemed a raw WR, 9.5x out of 10 if you are drafted in the 1st round, you are expected to make a year 1 impact. Rather they do or not is another story. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If by "impact" you mean a situational/rotational player then you're right. However, if by "impact" you mean a starter who plays like a veteran then you're wrong.
The "goal" is to get 7 starters in 7 rounds of the draft. In reality, that rarely happens and isn't "expected". And the same is true in the first round. And if you want to give out "F's" for reality that's on you.
That's just not true. Now, you can argue that you shouldn't draft potential in the first round, however, you've seen two different GMs, just in Miami, draft in the first round based on potential, with Dion Jordan and Charles Harris. Not to mention the analysts who agreed with taking those guys, based on potential, in the first round.
Disagree Nobody is drafting if either of those positions very often and just keeping them on the bench Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not arguing that they are drafted to be at their full potential year one, but they are certainly expected to contribute on the field in some way shape or form Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I kinda disagree again. Harris, for instance, was not expected to outperform the Wake or anyone else, so he wasn't drafted with the expectation that he would give significant snaps this season. When Tannehill was drafted, it was expected that he would sit at least the first season. Analysts said the same things, and didn't criticize those picks. So, it's fairly common for first round picks to not make an immediate impact.
They are drafted with no expectations of being starters in the first year. You play them, pass downs, dime package etc... but that's not what i call immediate impact, and Harris is certainly on that tract. There is a difference between a top ten pick and a first round pick. I agree with most of your argument. A RB, LB, OL, etc... they better be starting.
A situational DE is always what Harris was expected to be in year 1, I think. But I think they drafted him with the expectation he would have an impact in those situations this year.
You do not have to start to have an impact. We all knew Harris had a slim slim chance of not starting.
Right. So, clearly then, not all first round picks are expected to make an immediate impact. Why are we arguing?