Titans observe WR's during today's Senior Bowl Practice

So we established that %-wise CB > WR 1st round, moving on to FS:

S Taylor
Ed Reed
Polamalu
Mike Rumph
Archuleta

Oh yeah, LB #'s too, please

Maybe you should take some classes in Law or I guess you are just a typical Democrat because that is the second time you were flat out WRONG about what I said. Please look at the names next to the posts if you want to address me. TIA

Read number 6 and you will have your answer.

double post

PERCENTAGES ... PROBABILITIES

How does a smaller sample size make the % lower? It may be a bit more inaccurate, but not neccesarily lower. Please explain

And since you are admitting that other positions are safer, why don't we pick one of them since we have about 5 need positions on D?

Maybe you think your post count will make you seem more football intelligent. It won't and I am done in this thread.

If I poll three people and all say they smoke pot, should I conclude that all people smoke pot? There is no way to get an accurate figure from a small sample. Got it? And wouldn't it simply be argumentative since busts are subjective in the first place?

I don't care what position the Titans pick in the 1st round and I am sure they won't proclude positions based on past failures. That I know as fact and I am glad the organization is making the pick. Safe doesn't get you VY, safe gets you Kevin Dyson...think about!

:eh?:


:moon2:

That's what I said... maybe innacurate, but you said it would make them lower... how?

I'm Sorry but that analogy was horrible. Smoking pot = drafting NFL players

:ha: VY and K Dyson?? :ha: Different year? Different position? Different draft position? wow you're comparisons are in Left Field

VY at pick 19? A player with the same amount of potential at 19? no way.

How about safe gets you Cutler/Leinart plus Marcus McNeill/Jones-Drew/Harper/Jimmy Williams/Greg Jennings etc.? not bad. (although irrelevant as already pointed out)

And a bit innacurate, maybe, but how do you explain most positions being roughly 50% more effective?