Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread

10-13-2008 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobboFitos
Posting this from a blog, found it very interesting, thought you guys would too:
This honestly might be my favorite post in this entire thread so far.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:27 PM
it's looking more and more like i will have to take the guy i really do not want to take
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:27 PM
Sterling > Harrison in this format.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:28 PM
Bobbo,

Maybe that is a good point, but maybe he has it backwards? Offensive linemen, due to our lack of stats, are judged completely based on how they are perceived to perform, thats it. They do or don't let a DE get by them. They do or don't create holes for the RB. They do or don't get lots of penalties.

When judging/voting for a QB the decisions mostly are based on stats which are very high variance and dependent on the coaches, receivers, blocking, etc.

/edit how were NFL pro-bowl rosters determined before they started doing fan voting?
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assani Fisher
Assani: I think the Cowboys line may be overrated

Epi: No, look at how everyone says they are so good. These experts can't be wrong.

Assani: Ummmm...thats exactly what I mean by "overrated"

Epi: Well they made pro bowls

Assani: Another example of being overrated. Can you tell me exactly why you think they were so good.

Epi: Because they were stacked.




really????
Except that's not even the argument, the argument was that u thought they weren't the best ever. Name another oline better than them please.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Zoidberg
Because I think Sharpe is better.

Sharpe is great at everything and has phenomenal strength. Like Rice, there are no holes whatsoever in his game. You can say this guy does this slightly better (Marvin's route-running), but Sharpe is a complete wide receiver even in our league. Marvin lacks bulk and strength and is a liability in the running game. This lack of bulk limits Marvin in the red zone where he has less space to work with. In the playoffs, where coverage is tighter, Marvin's production dipped considerably.

Marvin Harrison's playoff performance:
1999: vs. Tennessee (Divisional Playoff): 5 receptions, 65 yards, 0 TDs
2000 vs Miami (Wild Card Playoff): 5 receptions, 63 yards, 0 TDs
2002 vs. NY Jets (Wild Card Playoff): 4 receptions, 47 yards, 0 TDs
2003 vs Denver (Wild Card Playoff): 7 receptions, 133 yards, 2 TDs
2003 vs Kansas City (Wild Card Playoff): 6 receptions, 98 yards, 0 TDs
2004 at New England (AFC Championship): 3 receptions, 19 yards, 0 TDs
2004 vs Denver (Wild Card Playoff): 4 receptions, 50 yards, 0 TDs
2004 at New England (Divisional Playoff): 5 receptions, 44 yards, 0 TDs
2005 vs Pittsburgh (Divisonal Playoff): 3 receptions, 52 yards, 0 TDs
2006 vs Kansas City (Wild Card Playoff): 2 receptions, 48 yards, 0 TDs
2006 at Baltimore (Divisional Playoff): 4 receptions, 45 yards, 0 TDs
2006 vs New England (AFC Championship): 4 receptions, 41 yards, 0 TDs
2006 vs Chicago (Super Bowl): 5 receptions, 59 yards, 0 TDs
2007 vs San Diego (Divisional Playoff): 2 receptions, 27 yards, 0 TDs

AVERAGE: 4.1 receptions, 55.3 yards, 0.2 TDs

That's not just variance, IMO. New England especially seemed to contain him very well.

By contrast, Sterling Sharpe's playoff performance:
1993: Green Bay at Detroit (Wild Card Playoff): 5 receptions, 101 yards, 3 TDs
1993: Green Bay at Dallas (Divisional Playoff): 6 receptions, 128 yards, 1 TD

AVERAGE: 5.5 receptions, 114.5 yards, 2 TDs

It's only two games, but it's still a pretty stark difference compared to Harrison's playoff performance.


Before Favre played, Sterling had already led the league in receptions, finished 2nd in receiving yardage, and was a first-team All-Pro in 1989, and followed that up with a second trip to the Pro Bowl in 1990 without Favre as well. Marvin did not make the Pro Bowl in either of his first two seasons without Manning.
In seven seasons, Sharpe was a 5-time Pro Bowler, and a 3-time 1st-team All-Pro. Marvin is a 8-time Pro Bowler, and a 3-time 1st-team All-Pro. If Sharpe's career wasn't cut short, we could easily be looking at a 10-time Pro Bowler and a 5-time 1st-team All-Pro. He was that dominant, and showed no signs of letting up, IMO.

While Marvin got the benefit of playing in a near-perfect offense with Peyton Manning in his prime, Sharpe played with a very green Brett Favre with little running game to keep defenses honest, IMO. Sharpe could possibly be in an even better situation on my team, while that is practically impossible for Epipen's.

Make no mistake, they are both two of the very best wide receivers to ever play. But some of you are acting like Sharpe is some downgrade when that is clearly not the case. Sterling Sharpe stacks up with any wide receiver since Jerry Rice and is the third best receiver in this draft besides Rice and Moss IMO.
As someone who came into this draft thinking that Marvin was clearly better than Sharpe, I think you've done a great job of defending your guy and you've caused me to reconsider.

If I were you I'd also point out league average stats for WRs in the two time periods which would suggest that Marvin's numbers advantage isn't nearly as big(if an advantage at all).
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:31 PM
Bobbo, can you give me a link to that article please?
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:31 PM
SL - thats a really good point. that said, does anyone track how many sacks allowed a particular player ON the offensive line let up? how many penalties/year? I would love to just look at ANY metric that lists ANY sort of tangible data.

the only thing i can do for this draft is go by pro-bowls; other then that im somewhat lost. i think needle probably has a wider knowledge of OL, but his strat has been to go for the elite ones first, so he probably wont even get an opp. to make use of that knowledge. i also don't think going by pro-bowls is a bad strat, but it is my only strat.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EPiPeN11
Except that's not even the argument, the argument was that u thought they weren't the best ever. Name another oline better than them please.
Denver of the late 90s.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assani Fisher
Denver of the late 90s.
Ok I disagree we will obv have to wait til all the players are drafted to discuss further
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobboFitos
SL - thats a really good point. that said, does anyone track how many sacks allowed a particular player ON the offensive line let up? how many penalties/year? I would love to just look at ANY metric that lists ANY sort of tangible data.

the only thing i can do for this draft is go by pro-bowls; other then that im somewhat lost. i think needle probably has a wider knowledge of OL, but his strat has been to go for the elite ones first, so he probably wont even get an opp. to make use of that knowledge. i also don't think going by pro-bowls is a bad strat, but it is my only strat.
actually another good point here....has Needle not negated his biggest strength(evaluating o-linemen) by going for the obvious ones first?
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:34 PM
for example, id love for statisticians to record how often a WR is "thrown to". i know IN GAME this is done alot (like last night Pats vs Chargers they showed moss was throw to 3 times but only had 1 rec) but i can't seem to find any site that shows passes dropped per year, thrown to, etc. this is more useful then just the raw "rec".
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:35 PM
well done zoidberg
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:38 PM
The only decent O-Line stats I know of are Football Outsiders "Offensive line" stats which are team, not player, stats and are only available (freely) for this year.

I would assume FOs game charting data has some more great info, but again that costs money and is only for the last few years.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvanJC
That's fine. Completion % is the only way I can think to evaluate that is independent of offensive system (while obviously being player dependent and therefore sucking). Aikman's is higher. Obviously this is horrible flawed, but I'm confused as to what sort of proof you're looking for here...it's all pretty subjective in a draft like this when we're talking about all time great hall of fame caliber players.

The other guy had more yards/tds, but he also threw more (which is probably why his comp % was lower bla bla). His peak was also higher than Troy's, although there are like 20 QB's you could say that for, none of which anyone would argue were > Aikman. His qb rating is higher, so if you think that stat is perfect then you can argue that he was > Aikman. Troy also had a lot more post season success (lol i know), was more consistent, and sustained his peak for longer. So, there's some reasons.

edit to clarify: I think it's really close b/w the two, and that it's insane the other guy is still on the board as well
The other guy would be a bad pick for me considering who I took in the first round, so the fact that he is available still shouldn't be held against my pick at all.

I think Aikman and him are close, pretty much comes down to what type of offense you want to run imo.

I'm still curious as to what the negatives of Aikman are, besides the fact that he played on a loaded team that didn't ask him to put up gawdy numbers.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:40 PM
I just found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flas...HIC/index.html

Which is really awesome, but only for 2005?
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:41 PM
Faneca is a good pick, I definitely considered him.
Hutch is solid too I think.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72
The only decent O-Line stats I know of are Football Outsiders "Offensive line" stats which are team, not player, stats and are only available (freely) for this year.

I would assume FOs game charting data has some more great info, but again that costs money and is only for the last few years.
yeah, that's the problem, most OL stats concern the OL as a whole rather than the individual. meh
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franchise 60
I think Aikman and him are close, pretty much comes down to what type of offense you want to run imo.

I'm still curious as to what the negatives of Aikman are, besides the fact that he played on a loaded team that didn't ask him to put up gawdy numbers.
I'm pretty sure Aikman is acknowledged as one of the most accurate passers of all time. He certainly didn't lack for arm strength either; I think someone mentioned his ability to throw the deep in/corner or something like that. If you watch video of him you can see he throws a really tight ball with super-high revolutions.

What does this mean? Nothing really. But I think its stupid to penalize the guy qualitatively because he played with the all time-leading rusher, an arguably top-10 or 15 receiver, and a ridiculous O-line. He had a lot of tools with or without the help he had in Dallas.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lennytheduck
I'm pretty sure Aikman is acknowledged as one of the most accurate passers of all time. He certainly didn't lack for arm strength either; I think someone mentioned his ability to throw the deep in/corner or something like that. If you watch video of him you can see he throws a really tight ball with super-high revolutions.

What does this mean? Nothing really. But I think its stupid to penalize the guy qualitatively because he played with the all time-leading rusher, an arguably top-10 or 15 receiver, and a ridiculous O-line. He had a lot of tools with or without the help he had in Dallas.
Agree 100%. This isn't an average guy who luckboxed into a good situation. This is a super talented guy with all the tools who luckboxed into a good situation. But he was as much a part of the situation in Dallas as anyone.

I guess my main point is he had all the tools. He is one of the most accurate QB's ever, had a strong arm, good build, was tough as hell, and was a great leader. Plus this format helps him.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franchise 60
Agree 100%. This isn't an average guy who luckboxed into a good situation. This is a super talented guy with all the tools who luckboxed into a good situation. But he was as much a part of the situation in Dallas as anyone.

I guess my main point is he had all the tools. He is one of the most accurate QB's ever, had a strong arm, good build, was tough as hell, and was a great leader. Plus this format helps him.
can you elaborate? as far as I can tell this format seems to reward big years and punish consistency
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvanJC
can you elaborate? as far as I can tell this format seems to reward big years and punish consistency
1. I think he was much better and talented than his numbers show. Not many QB's played on teams as loaded as those Cowboys teams to where they could have a super talented QB and win with him throwing it 20 times. He had games where he threw for 350 yards+ when they needed a big performance out of him, they were just committed to the run to the point where he couldn't put up 4500 yard seasons.

2. He can be effective in different types of systems (You don't have to go with one offense just to make it work with him).

3. He played QB on those Dallas teams, filled with an immense amount of ego, and was a very strong leader. A guy like that is going to be needed for these teams since it will basically be teams full of all stars, having a QB who has dealt with that is a pretty big positive imo.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 07:04 PM
Yep, I had a feeling the guard run was coming. Considered Faneca or Hutchinson but decided in the end to go with Dawson. I think all 3 are fine picks.
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote
10-13-2008 , 07:06 PM
Umm...edit? Seriously what's with all the outing of names?
NFL Modern Era Draft: Discussion Thread Quote

      
m