I dont remember much about braylon coming out but calvin's numbers at the combine/proday are better in every way possible. Hes 3 inches taller with a 4.5 inch better vertical, quicker forty, and 29 to 22 reps.

...because "Running backs are rarely can't-miss prospects" doesn't exclude one from being a can't-miss prospect?

...and for all the reasons others ITT have said they thought of him that way?

What happens if the Colts and Dolphins both go 0-16(or 1-15)?

braylon was a phenomenal prospect but not quite on the calvin/fitz level. ppl questioned his toughness, character and ability to catch.

Strength of schedule is the tiebreaker for the NFL draft, weaker schedule drafts higher. If SoS is the same then a coinflip is used.

colts have the edge on this because of division or no?

Honestly not sure. That makes sense on the surface but Colts playing a 1st-place schedule and Dolphins playing a 3rd-place schedule might balance it out. Colts probably still have an edge there is my guess without looking it up.

edit: it would be extremely hilarious if the Dolphins went 0-16 and still couldn't get sucking for Luck right

The thing about the "can't miss" prospects is that the list is defunct. Shouldn't we be retroactively applying the "can't miss" tag to guys like:

Rodgers
Brees
Megatron
AJ
ADP
Newton
Jared Allen
Matthews
Revis
Suh
Brady
etc.*

and on and on? These guys all ultimately ended up being "can't miss", it's just that people didn't know it at the time. (Though some were taken top 3 obv. but I don't remember if they got the "can't miss" tag - except Suh).

So when people say Luck is "can't miss", he should be compared to guys that ended up being "can't miss", shouldn't he? None of the guys I've listed were at the time dubbed "once-in-a-generation talents" (except maybe Suh). So, when people say Luck is a "once-a-generation" talent (Elway/Manning/Luck) do they really expect he'll be that much better than guys like Brees, Brady, Newton and Rodgers?

*List could go on and on obv.

....

Are those dots a response to my post?

Words just can't express the failure of your post is what he's trying to say I think.

Why do you say that? Please type stuff and not just be a dick.

Leave the leveling to Assani

Yea I guess a rb can be a can't miss, don't think AP was one though. PP otoh was def. one. I would have took him #1 overall if I had the first pick and gladly given up the chance at CAMCAMCAM

Because determining whether a prospect is "can't-miss" is as much an evaluation of the scouting process as it is of the prospect. If you retroactively call anyone who made it "can't miss", you destroy the meaning of the words. The point is to find out how many prospects were considered can't-miss prior to the draft and whether they succeeded or failed. And even that is tricky because the definition of "can't miss", as we've seen here, varies.

Not to mention someone who did succeed could have easily missed if other things went differently. Someone mentioned Andre Wadsworth-- if he doesn't keep tearing up his knees maybe we talk about him now the way we do Reggie White. Who knows? And maybe Tom Brady goes to a team where they bury him on the depth chart for 3 years, cut him, and no one ever really gives him a chance to start, or he always ends up with dysfunctional organizations, or what have you.

To get to the man in question ITT, Luck has been spoken of in the same breath as Peyton Manning and John Elway as far as prospects go, which is pretty huge praise. Those are the only two QBs I can think of in my lifetime who were considered surefire, can't miss prospects.

Not that really.

That would be the case if the Colts and Dolphins weren't both in the AFC, but since they are, there are a bunch of other tiebreakers to work through before getting the the flip.

You're right, according to about.com divisional and conference record come before the coinflip.

That's what I mean. When people say "he only comes around 3 times since 1983, they aren't accounting for the fact that mega elite QBs have come around far more often than that. It's not their fault they were improperly labeled prior to the draft.

Really? When we do NFL re-drafts guys like Rodgers go first overall. Because we know he's "can't miss" now. It's not his fault people didn't realize that when he came out. It seems like that's a direct application of the phrase.

The point of what? I'm trying to make a point that since 1998, there have been a large handful of mega elite QBs. Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and what is looking like Newton now. Not sure if Rivers, Rape, McNabb, Vick or Warner belong on that list or not but only 1 of these guys (Manning) was I guess considered a once-in-a-generation talent.

My point is when people say they would trade multiple drafts for Luck, they are failing to account for the fact that mega elite, Super Bowl contending QBs come around often enough that they may be over-reacting.

What is applicable to winning RANGZ is being mega elite. You don't have to be once-in-a-generation. I understand that people think the likelihood of him not being elite may be smaller than most #1s but people need to recognize that scouting is still at a pretty AIDS level and it's not impossible to strike gold somewhere else in the draft.

Since 1998, the once-in-a-generation QB has won 1 rang. 12 rangz were won by guys nobody considered close to "once in a generation"

It's these:
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed
Best net points in conference games; best net points in all games
Best net touchdowns in all games

I believe.

In short, it's reeeeeeeeeeeeeally unlikely we see a "flip for Luck".

PHB,

Your line only works if you assume all teams are created equal. Do you really think it's reasonable to assume Peyton's value to the Colts=Brady's to the Pats?

Peyton keeps the Colts competitive by his lonesome (obv. oversimplification since without Peyton the Colts would rework their gameplans over time). Getting another guy like that is worth more than the other "Mega-elite QBs" you mentioned.

Why have so many teams without "once-in-a-genration" QBs won rings since 1998 then? Is the QB position not as valuable as we make it out to be?

Some would even argue that Brady+Marino > Manning+Elway, though the former group didn't get near the draft love of the latter. But I'm not gonna sit here and say M+E 8 super bowl appearances and 3 wins isn't impressive obv.

But a lot of teams that have won rangz lately have had elite talent all over the field and no "once a generation QB". So, is it really wise to trade away 2 entire drafts for Andrew Luck?

Wat

QB is obv important, but there are 33 other positions in the game. Cumulatively they're more important that QB LDO.

Trent Dilfer has a rang, Big Rape and his astronomical sack rate has 2. Hell, Peyton's ring came during one of his worst 4 game stretches.

You know all this so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

QB algebra ITT

2 Drafts is probably a little much, but bringing up Tom Brady as a "you shouldn't trade two 6ths" argument isn't hugely helpful. Unsuprisingly, 6th round picks don't turn into multiple time MVPs too often.

But what I'm saying-- and the part of the post you didn't quote-- is that many of those other guys may not have succeeded under worse circumstances. Rodgers might have fallen apart if he was in a David Carr-type situation, for example. You can't go back and say they're sure things because you don't know that they were.

Because we have an actual career to evaluate now. ITT we're talking about evaluating prospects as can't-miss future players, not players as didn't-miss prospects. Does that make sense?

They actually don't come around that often. Between 5 and 10 guys in 14 years? We're talking 5 elite guys-- that's basically 1 every three years, and even a couple of those guys came with concerns; Brees took a while to develop and may never have become the player he is now if he didn't team up with Sean Payton, for example. Then you listed five guys past that, one of whom is a serial rapist, one of whom went to jail for a few years, one of whom was an UDFA (this holds for Romo too if you include him), and the other two have question marks as well.

Getting an elite QB is the single best thing you can do for your team's championship chances. No prospect is literally, 100%, can't miss, but if you've got a guy you think is as close as can realistically be, he becomes worth it. Put it another way, knowing what you know now, how much would you give up, draftwise, to draft Peyton Manning in 1998?

Pretty strongly disagree with the bolded. Look how much better the high picks from the 2010 and 2011 drafts have been doing, consistently, than players drafted in those spots in years past. I think the information age has really advanced scouting, because the amount of data available on a player, as well as a scout's ability to analyze it, is greater than ever.

But they did pan out. And what if Carr was in a different situation? Or Alex Smith? Or Carson Palmer? They may have ended up being Aaron Rodgers. You can't just assume huge prospects who faded out wouldn't have been good somewhere else, either.

I'm not trying to discount his prospect. I'm saying there's a chance there are other QBs out there who may enter the same draft or maybe next year that will also end up being mega elite and won't have to trade 2 drafts for. Pre-draft ratings don't help that much. Look at what historically ends up happening. QBs who weren't surrounded with hoopla end up being super elite. That fact needs to be accounted for, because it's what reality ends up being.


Brees may not have met Sean Payton but he did. What does rapist and jail and UDFA have to do with it? That list of players has been to several Super Bowls. Largely because they were on teams surrounded with talent that was drafted in the NFL draft. And I'm not putting Romo on that list, wtf?


Obviously. I just don't know how much it should cost in draft picks to get that QB. To answer your question nothing. I'd wait 2 years and draft Brady in the 5th round and rub money on my titties.


It does seem to be getting better. But it seems like the number of players drafted who end up being "didn't miss" is still much higher than those dubbed "can't miss".

The problem with the above is that Peyton is on your radar, Brady is an after thought. Yeah, you might win the lotto on a 5th round flyer, but the can't miss guy is a lot more likely to be successful I'd think.

Or, for more dumb math:

Let's assume that if you get an Elite QB, you will 100% win a SB in the next decade (you'll win 0 otherwise, cause you suck at filling out the rest of your team and Kubiak is your coach). You can either have the #1 pick, or a train of 6th round flyers. If the #1 guy is 30% likely to become elite and the 6th round flyers are 2% each to do it, the #1 pick is the obv choice. The numbers are obv pulled out of my ass, but you get the point. Do you really believe that a random 6th is more than 2% likely to become elite (I'm thinking it's muuuuch lower) or that the #1 is less than 30% likely to do so (I'm thinking also lower, but not by a ton).