Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

BF004 Mock Offseason v.012 (Had to try this once)
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PackFan4Life


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 4126
Location: De Pere, WI
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrettFavre004 wrote:
justo wrote:
Thompson's height barometer-----> -------

E.J. Gaines


Sam shields 5106
Tramon Williams 5111

Banjo is on the roster at 5096, I think you are taking that way to literally.

Before you even nam make the argument that none of those guys were drafted, I say there are examples (Underwood) and secondly, irrelevant.

Why wouldn't Ted attempt to emulate his best players rather than binding himself to a self imposed arbitrary constraint?


None of these three were draft picks. That is the difference. TT will discriminate on height when it comes to CBs, and to some extent at the S and others positions when it comes to using his picks. He is much more willing to not discriminate on height when he is looking at the UDFA pool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 4097
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dunderhead wrote:
TheBitzMan wrote:
I would love it but with what has happened to others that have done such things it would scare me a little bit. Falcons have no depth after trading up to get Julio and the Redskins are a dumpster fire. I will say that this makes a lot more sense for us than the Falcons trading to get a weapon. If we want to improve the D quickly this is definitely one way to do it with Clowney and the FAs.


Same reason I don't like those trades. What happens if Clowney becomes the next Steve Emtman? That guy was primed to be the next Reggie White, and dare I say he might have given Reggie a run for his money. He was a BEAST!

But I wonder how many around here even heard of the guy? How many remember?

Nah, you can't give up what should amount to 2 good players for a guy who has the possibility of being great. Rarely (as in almost never) does it work out.


One of the best defensive college players I have EVER seen. FWIW, like you said, it's not like he couldn't play in the league. Just kept getting hurt.

I guess my point is, I'm not going to say well, nay on Clowney because he could get hurt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BrettFavre004


Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 20218
Location: Galesville, WI
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackFan4Life wrote:
BrettFavre004 wrote:
justo wrote:
Thompson's height barometer-----> -------

E.J. Gaines


Sam shields 5106
Tramon Williams 5111

Banjo is on the roster at 5096, I think you are taking that way to literally.

Before you even nam make the argument that none of those guys were drafted, I say there are examples (Underwood) and secondly, irrelevant.

Why wouldn't Ted attempt to emulate his best players rather than binding himself to a self imposed arbitrary constraint?


None of these three were draft picks. That is the difference. TT will discriminate on height when it comes to CBs, and to some extent at the S and others positions when it comes to using his picks. He is much more willing to not discriminate on height when he is looking at the UDFA pool.


If you guys really choose to believe Ted won't draft a DB at <5'11 or <=5109, even though he actively pursues them as FA's (Therrian Fontenot, Joe Porter, Frank Walker, Sam Shields, Chris Banjo), already drafted one (Underwood), and even trade for one (Derrick Martin), then there is no point in debating this.

I do study statistics for a living, actually in calculating trends, trying to predict future financial activity as an actuay, to quote Stuart Chase "it is easy to see the persuasiveness in this type of argument. By pushing one's case to the limit... one forces the opposition into a weaker position. The whole future is lined up against him. Driven to the defensive, he finds it hard to disprove something which has not yet happened.

Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely."
_________________


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
HyponGrey


Joined: 23 Jun 2012
Posts: 3736
Location: Down the road from NFL Films
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrettFavre004 wrote:
justo wrote:
Thompson's height barometer-----> -------

E.J. Gaines


Sam shields 5106
Tramon Williams 5111

Banjo is on the roster at 5096, I think you are taking that way to literally.

Before you even nam make the argument that none of those guys were drafted, I say there are examples (Underwood) and secondly, irrelevant.

Why wouldn't Ted attempt to emulate his best players rather than binding himself to a self imposed arbitrary constraint?
Because not arbitrary, and you look to compliment your best players. Which is why we go 43 if we draft Clowney. No way he ever plays standing up.
_________________
justo wrote:
Bostick drove a guy 12 yards and finished off with a pancake and I'm not sure where my pants went.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 4097
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrettFavre004 wrote:


If you guys really choose to believe Ted won't draft a DB at <5'11 or <=5109, even though he actively pursues them as FA's (Therrian Fontenot, Joe Porter, Frank Walker, Sam Shields, Chris Banjo), already drafted one (Underwood), and even trade for one (Derrick Martin), then there is no point in debating this.

I do study statistics for a living, actually in calculating trends, trying to predict future financial activity as an actuay, to quote Stuart Chase "it is easy to see the persuasiveness in this type of argument. By pushing one's case to the limit... one forces the opposition into a weaker position. The whole future is lined up against him. Driven to the defensive, he finds it hard to disprove something which has not yet happened.

Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely."


What I think is lost is that if someone is under his "height requirement," I don't think they're removed from the board. I think they just take a hit on the board more substantial than other teams. Someone is always going to have them higher and take them.

A lot of people who believe in this stuff also believed (and now refused to acknowledge) that we would take an under 5 11 WR. We did it with Cobb, and then poof it was as if that rule never applied to WR (I believe he took one before that even IIRC.)

My point being, I think eventually he will draft a 5'10" DB who he finds more value in than others do for things beside the height, then off setting his height preference and people will realize it was never a requirement, just a preference that he dings prospects more heavily for than other teams. Thompson isn't dense enough to think, well any DB under 5 11 isn't good enough for the NFL so I want draft them, while completing ignoring the successful under 5 11 DBs that exist in the NFL.

Just my POV.

Additionally, I would ever count out someone evolving as an evaluator either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
BrettFavre004


Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 20218
Location: Galesville, WI
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great post, pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well.
_________________


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13402
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But every team has H/W/S minimums, so that's kinda a moot point, no? A lot of guys get kicked off a big board for things other than character. An NFL team is lucky if they have 200 on their board in April/May.

Also, trading/signing is totally different than drafting. When you're drafting, you try to minimize risk as much as possible. Trades and signings are players who you already know have played in the league and have shown what they can do.
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group