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

Discussion in 'NFL Draft' started by Dr.Awkward, Jan 25, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bongo59

    bongo59 Camp Fodder

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,191
    Premise: There are those that think using a #1 pick on a Wide Reciever is a good move this year:

    Actual stats to evaluate premise: Draft position from 1983 to 2006. Criteria used: Average draft number of the top 10 picks in each draft from dates scanned. If there was not a WR drafted in the top 10, select the top wide reciever drafted.

    Stats revealled: The average draft number used for drafting a wide reciever in the top ten is #8.95 (for those who do not understand, the average position a WR was drafted in the NFL draft was number 9)

    As for using the first overall pick on a wide reciever, twice it has happened in the time span utilized. Irvin Fryar and Keyshawn Johnson. In both cases, they are in the higher overall range as far as wideouts are concerned, but neither set a standard of excellence that is unquestioned, although Fryar has been mentioned as a potential Hall of Fame candidate, but it is unlikely he will make the Hall any time soon.

    The best statisical player drafted in the top 10 in the NFL draft is unquestionably Tim Brown. The worst may be David Terrell or Peter Warrick, but as of right now, using the #2 pick on Charles Rogers has proven to be a terrible selection.

    Other notable top wide reciever picks include Desmond Howard (#4), Curtis Conway (#7), Kenny Jackson (#4), JJ Stokes (#10), to name just a few.

    The most interesting part of this was to determine actual productivity based on draft position, and here is the results: Of the top 20 wide recievers based on yardage alone, 17 of the top 20 were NOT drafted in the top 10 of any draft, and a few were drafted as low as the 4th to 8th rounds.

    Conclusion: Using a #1 pick on a wide reciever is a very risky selection. The statistics of drafting a wide reciever in the top 10, while inconclusive do show that most players will never make even one pro-bowl, let alone be considered Hall of Fame calibre players
  2. hey bongo, ive always wanted to ask u this, how do u improve ur 10 yard burst, like for real... not mRNA
  3. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,775
    Righteous? Not even close!

    Thanks for the personal attack...a good way to counter the two posts I wrote so you could ignore them. Maybe that works in a High School debate class but not here...

    This is what you wrote...
    "There were 43 WR's drafted between 1996-2005 in the first round. Here are the ones who made it to the Superbowl.

    Marvin Harrison
    Reggie Wayne
    Rod Gardner (Carolina)
    Freddie Mitchell
    Torry Holt
    Kevin Dyson
    Marcus Nash
    Ike Hilliard
    Terry Glen

    That's 9 out of 43, which is a 21% chance of Superbowl success at that position."

    This doesn't mean anything. This is akin to going through stock lists and figuring that the stock of the 83rd one listed has statistically done well. Does it mean if you invest in the next stock listed at 83 that it will do well and follow the previous increase? Of course not. Hence, it doesn't mean anything.

    Agreed, but talking about a position giving a Superbowl success percentage isn't the way to do it which is why I pointed it out. Furthermore, calling Pro Bowl caliber players busts doesn't improve your credibility.

    You wrote the list of bust CB's so it is a fair point to argue. If you're trying to show that there are just as many busts at CB as WR and you list good players as busts, expect people to call you on it. And yes, I agree with your point that no position is 'bustproof.'

    You and I are arguing different points. I don't disagree with you that no position is bust proof, but I don't agree with your assertion that the draft is a 'crapshoot' and your success rate is similar for all positions....because they aren't. And a crapshoot implies that all teams would have the same success rates overtime...which they don't.

    The same way you listed a player in his second yr as a bust. I was pointing out that a player in his second year needs more time.

    That is your opinion and you're welcome to it.

    Maybe if you took a moment and asked about those players before making accusations and then insulting me again, you might get a clarification. If my brand of opinion is meaningless to you, I suggest you put me on ignore. For anyone else interested in why I didn't list those players was because Mo Collins and Matt Stinchcomb were drafted as tackles but were moved to OG so I didn't include them in a list counting teams drafting OG. I couldn't remember if Mayberry was drafted at OG or OT (cause according to Dr. Z he played OT for the Eagles). Rather than skew the results one way or the other (it would only have HELPED my argument since he started 104 games in the NFL), I chose to leave him out to be fair.

    Gut
  4. Gut

    Gut Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,775
    Interesting....

    Nice post!

    Gut
  5. bongo59

    bongo59 Camp Fodder

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,191
    you can improve your ten yard burst many ways...............if you upregulate your mRNA that is one way. One can do that via chemicals and enzymes and certain exercise regimes we have developed. Currently we are having some athletes use a natural chemical found in the skins of red grapes called resveratrol. I am currently involved with a new biotech company and athletes in several sports that are doing biochemical testing on metabolism and the cellular powerplant of high levels athletes. We can improve many aspects of cellular function to try to improve performance and your ten yard burst.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.