NFL 2021 - Draft Day or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Pick

[Jace, Extat]

I've swung all the way back to hate. Hate.

Hate.

HATE.

The Colts paid actual dollars to Marlon Mack, who tore his achilles tendon in week 1 last year. A RB. With an achilles. I could end this rant now, but I'm just getting started.

They drafted a kid in the 2nd round who tore his achilles in JANUARY. Fine, whatever. He's a project for next year but two is a line.

And then Eric Fisher gets -and this is the one that has me apoplectic- a significant salary for nothing. For nothing. Are the Colts                marginally exceptional? Dudes, this is gonna be fucking hilarious when he doesn't play until week 15 next year and makes almost ten million dollars. Straight up, yo. Fischer should give his agent a blowjob for every zero in that salary. Not because he might not be worth it, but because now he doesn't have to be. It would be downright irresponsible of Fisher or his medical advisors to allow him onto the football field before he's well past repaired. Greg Robinson still gets paid for the privilege of being a turnstile. Eric can hang out in the training room for the entire season, get some good reps in at the end of the year, and take a big payday next season when the cap goes back up.

Good job, Chris Ballard.

P.S.

There's a built-in excuse for the Colts to suck this year. They have that 2nd round pick, a pass rusher folks say coulda gone in the first if his career wasn't over, and now Fischer on rehab. Next year the Colts don't get a 1st rounder, because they won't bench Wentz even if he blows, so they can re-sign Fischer for an outrageous sum and claim that "between Eric getting a full offseason and 2nd round pick, we feel like we're in a great place. Because Carson was like a rookie this year (ignore all that business about his familiarity with Frank Reich, it won't fit the narrative), so he's our 1st round pick really. All three guys. Yeah, we feel great about where our team is this year."

There was a story on PFT (I know, I'm sick. I need help. I have a problem, man. Listen, man, it's like May and stuff man. Like, I'll do stuff man. For some football. You got some football, man? Lemme get that football. I need it, man. You, like, don't understand man... I'm tryin' to save up for football rehab, man, but I need some just right now man...) about how Jim Irsay is mad that the Colts have only had 15 primetime games in the last six years (and only three of those at home). When you consider that every team is guaranteed a thursday night game once a year that average of just over 2 primetime games a year shrinks to one-and-a-half primetime games a season for the last six years. Jim Irsay thinks this is unfair and has complained to the league.

I would like to speak to this. My statement follows:

Burger King is possibly the most inspiring capitalist venture in the modern American market. I haven't walked into, or ordered from, the franchise in at least two decades. At a conservative count. I don't know anyone who recalls having done so in relevant memory. And if I did I would be sure not to know them long.

And yet.

The Burger King is in every city. It burrows. It culls. It lives. The CEO of Burger King must be a shrewd and wise man, to guide such a wretched purveyor of bagged barf to a sustainable model.

And yet.

I don't eat there. Ain't a lot of sizzle on that Burger, King. Ain't no way no how that I'm spending $7.50 for a quarter-pounder with cheese and a watered-down sodapop when there's a butcher within a hundred miles. Just won't have it. Can't. It's not about the Burger King, it's about me. And where I am in my life right now. Y'know. Yeah. The Burger King is always there. Lightin' itself on the side of the road like some real cheap meat, if y' take my meanin'. But you don't want that inside of you. Know what I mean? Sure, there's gonna be salt and sauce enough to make it seem exciting in the moment, but then that sense of shame. That's gonna do a number on your soul long before your flesh responds to the insult you've dealt it. And that's setting aside the possibility that someone will recall at a later point in life having seen you at the Burger King, and will remind you your sin. A spiral of misery and depreciation is the fruit of such folly.

So what I'm saying is that being cheap on buns and meat and advertising and labor and overhead and veg and whatever-the-fuck-else goes into running a Burger King may not make an appetizing product, but probably allows it to keep operating. And is therefore the correct way to operate that venture when the victory condition is to create profit.

But you don't put it in primetime, Burger King. And you sure as shit don't do it in their farm-fuck lookin' building.

 

[Maithanet]

This article from 538 has me scratching my head. The article is arguing that teams picking low-value positions with premium draft picks are picking badly (regardless of whether those players are actually good).  I think we can all agree that picking a punter or a long snapper or a fullback in the first round is stupid, because even the best players at those positions don't really impact the game that much.  But that thinking rarely applies to any other position. And IMO, for good reason.  The approach outlined in this article has several flaws:

The article assesses "value" of a position based on the salary that guys playing that position make.  I would argue this is somewhat flawed, since positional longevity impacts salary so much (middle linebackers and running backs usually have short careers, and thus by the time their rookie contracts are up, their best years could be behind them). 

Secondly, it assumes that whether a player succeeds or fails is independent of the conditions around him.  If a team drafted only quarterbacks in all 7 rounds, and then signed walk-ons for all the other positions, that team would be drafting horribly. In addition, such a team probably wouldn't have any good quarterbacks either, since he'd be getting sacked so much he'd develop bad habits. 

It's fine to say that good drafting involves understanding the comparative value of the different positions.  But that is IMO a very pretty small part of drafting well.  The cost of missing on a first round tackle or cornerback is much lower than the cost of missing on a first round quarterback, because if he sucks, he'll hold your whole team back.  And if you're talking about the 4th best quarterback in any given year, there's a strong chance he's going to be bad.  In contrast, if there's a defensive player that checks all the boxes of a top 10 pick, the odds are better he's going to be a contributor, if not a star. 

[Jace, Extat]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This article from 538 has me scratching my head. The article is arguing that teams picking low-value positions with premium draft picks are picking badly (regardless of whether those players are actually good).  I think we can all agree that picking a punter or a long snapper or a fullback in the first round is stupid, because even the best players at those positions don't really impact the game that much.  But that thinking rarely applies to any other position. And IMO, for good reason.  The approach outlined in this article has several flaws:

The article assesses "value" of a position based on the salary that guys playing that position make.  I would argue this is somewhat flawed, since positional longevity impacts salary so much (middle linebackers and running backs usually have short careers, and thus by the time their rookie contracts are up, their best years could be behind them). 

Secondly, it assumes that whether a player succeeds or fails is independent of the conditions around him.  If a team drafted only quarterbacks in all 7 rounds, and then signed walk-ons for all the other positions, that team would be drafting horribly. In addition, such a team probably wouldn't have any good quarterbacks either, since he'd be getting sacked so much he'd develop bad habits. 

It's fine to say that good drafting involves understanding the comparative value of the different positions.  But that is IMO a very pretty small part of drafting well.  The cost of missing on a first round tackle or cornerback is much lower than the cost of missing on a first round quarterback, because if he sucks, he'll hold your whole team back.  And if you're talking about the 4th best quarterback in any given year, there's a strong chance he's going to be bad.  In contrast, if there's a defensive player that checks all the boxes of a top 10 pick, the odds are better he's going to be a contributor, if not a star. 

People love making their space-calculators come up with fancy-sounding numbers that masquerade as an opinion on sport.

[Kalbear]

30 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This article from 538 has me scratching my head. The article is arguing that teams picking low-value positions with premium draft picks are picking badly (regardless of whether those players are actually good).  I think we can all agree that picking a punter or a long snapper or a fullback in the first round is stupid, because even the best players at those positions don't really impact the game that much.  But that thinking rarely applies to any other position. And IMO, for good reason.  The approach outlined in this article has several flaws:

The article assesses "value" of a position based on the salary that guys playing that position make.  I would argue this is somewhat flawed, since positional longevity impacts salary so much (middle linebackers and running backs usually have short careers, and thus by the time their rookie contracts are up, their best years could be behind them). 

Well, kinda. Linebackers are FAR more prevalent in college than they are in pros since pro base is nickel now. That means good CBs are in a higher demand and good LBs are in a less demand as a rule. Same goes for RBs; there are a LOT more RBs compared to the need at the NFL level. 

30 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Secondly, it assumes that whether a player succeeds or fails is independent of the conditions around him.  If a team drafted only quarterbacks in all 7 rounds, and then signed walk-ons for all the other positions, that team would be drafting horribly. In addition, such a team probably wouldn't have any good quarterbacks either, since he'd be getting sacked so much he'd develop bad habits. 

Counterpoint: if a team drafted QBs that were awesome and used those to get other players of equal value, they'd be drafting super awesome. This would be the @Whiskeyjack version of real drafting, where you get the best high value players and then worry about specific positions a bit later to a larger extent. 

 

[briantw]

32 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This article from 538 has me scratching my head. The article is arguing that teams picking low-value positions with premium draft picks are picking badly (regardless of whether those players are actually good).  I think we can all agree that picking a punter or a long snapper or a fullback in the first round is stupid, because even the best players at those positions don't really impact the game that much.  But that thinking rarely applies to any other position. And IMO, for good reason.  The approach outlined in this article has several flaws:

The article assesses "value" of a position based on the salary that guys playing that position make.  I would argue this is somewhat flawed, since positional longevity impacts salary so much (middle linebackers and running backs usually have short careers, and thus by the time their rookie contracts are up, their best years could be behind them). 

Secondly, it assumes that whether a player succeeds or fails is independent of the conditions around him.  If a team drafted only quarterbacks in all 7 rounds, and then signed walk-ons for all the other positions, that team would be drafting horribly. In addition, such a team probably wouldn't have any good quarterbacks either, since he'd be getting sacked so much he'd develop bad habits. 

It's fine to say that good drafting involves understanding the comparative value of the different positions.  But that is IMO a very pretty small part of drafting well.  The cost of missing on a first round tackle or cornerback is much lower than the cost of missing on a first round quarterback, because if he sucks, he'll hold your whole team back.  And if you're talking about the 4th best quarterback in any given year, there's a strong chance he's going to be bad.  In contrast, if there's a defensive player that checks all the boxes of a top 10 pick, the odds are better he's going to be a contributor, if not a star. 

I think that passing on a potential franchise QB to take a corner is bad process even if the corner ends up good.  

This is, of course, assuming you don't already have a good QB on your roster, which is the case for Denver and Carolina.  Drew Lock is garbage, Bridgewater is just a guy, and we have no reason to believe Darnold is any good either.  

I don't think anyone is saying you should draft a QB in the first every single time one is available.  No one is killing the Bengals for passing on a QB. They just drafted Burrow first overall a year ago and he looked pretty good his rookie year.  But if you don't have an answer at QB, or really anything close to one, passing on a player like Fields to take a CB is going to look really bad if Fields turns out to be great.  It won't matter how good the corner is. 

Positional value is not a new thing.  Smart teams put a premium on the impact positions.  QB is at the top of the pyramid.  

Here's an example of said pyramid:

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3679554/NFL_Pyramid.0.jpg

[dbunting]

1 hour ago, Babblebauble said:

I've swung all the way back to hate. Hate.

Hate.

HATE.

The Colts paid actual dollars to Marlon Mack, who tore his achilles tendon in week 1 last year. A RB. With an achilles. I could end this rant now, but I'm just getting started.

They drafted a kid in the 2nd round who tore his achilles in JANUARY. Fine, whatever. He's a project for next year but two is a line.

And then Eric Fisher gets -and this is the one that has me apoplectic- a significant salary for nothing. For nothing. Are the Colts                marginally exceptional? Dudes, this is gonna be fucking hilarious when he doesn't play until week 15 next year and makes almost ten million dollars. Straight up, yo. Fischer should give his agent a blowjob for every zero in that salary. Not because he might not be worth it, but because now he doesn't have to be. It would be downright irresponsible of Fisher or his medical advisors to allow him onto the football field before he's well past repaired. Greg Robinson still gets paid for the privilege of being a turnstile. Eric can hang out in the training room for the entire season, get some good reps in at the end of the year, and take a big payday next season when the cap goes back up.

Good job, Chris Ballard.

P.S.

There's a built-in excuse for the Colts to suck this year. They have that 2nd round pick, a pass rusher folks say coulda gone in the first if his career wasn't over, and now Fischer on rehab. Next year the Colts don't get a 1st rounder, because they won't bench Wentz even if he blows, so they can re-sign Fischer for an outrageous sum and claim that "between Eric getting a full offseason and 2nd round pick, we feel like we're in a great place. Because Carson was like a rookie this year (ignore all that business about his familiarity with Frank Reich, it won't fit the narrative), so he's our 1st round pick really. All three guys. Yeah, we feel great about where our team is this year."

There was a story on PFT (I know, I'm sick. I need help. I have a problem, man. Listen, man, it's like May and stuff man. Like, I'll do stuff man. For some football. You got some football, man? Lemme get that football. I need it, man. You, like, don't understand man... I'm tryin' to save up for football rehab, man, but I need some just right now man...) about how Jim Irsay is mad that the Colts have only had 15 primetime games in the last six years (and only three of those at home). When you consider that every team is guaranteed a thursday night game once a year that average of just over 2 primetime games a year shrinks to one-and-a-half primetime games a season for the last six years. Jim Irsay thinks this is unfair and has complained to the league.

I would like to speak to this. My statement follows:

Burger King is possibly the most inspiring capitalist venture in the modern American market. I haven't walked into, or ordered from, the franchise in at least two decades. At a conservative count. I don't know anyone who recalls having done so in relevant memory. And if I did I would be sure not to know them long.

And yet.

The Burger King is in every city. It burrows. It culls. It lives. The CEO of Burger King must be a shrewd and wise man, to guide such a wretched purveyor of bagged barf to a sustainable model.

And yet.

I don't eat there. Ain't a lot of sizzle on that Burger, King. Ain't no way no how that I'm spending $7.50 for a quarter-pounder with cheese and a watered-down sodapop when there's a butcher within a hundred miles. Just won't have it. Can't. It's not about the Burger King, it's about me. And where I am in my life right now. Y'know. Yeah. The Burger King is always there. Lightin' itself on the side of the road like some real cheap meat, if y' take my meanin'. But you don't want that inside of you. Know what I mean? Sure, there's gonna be salt and sauce enough to make it seem exciting in the moment, but then that sense of shame. That's gonna do a number on your soul long before your flesh responds to the insult you've dealt it. And that's setting aside the possibility that someone will recall at a later point in life having seen you at the Burger King, and will remind you your sin. A spiral of misery and depreciation is the fruit of such folly.

So what I'm saying is that being cheap on buns and meat and advertising and labor and overhead and veg and whatever-the-fuck-else goes into running a Burger King may not make an appetizing product, but probably allows it to keep operating. And is therefore the correct way to operate that venture when the victory condition is to create profit.

But you don't put it in primetime, Burger King. And you sure as shit don't do it in their farm-fuck lookin' building.

 

So, safe to say you don't wanna meet for lunch at BK tomorrow? Asking for a friend...

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, briantw said:

I think that passing on a potential franchise QB to take a corner is bad process even if the corner ends up good.  

This is, of course, assuming you don't already have a good QB on your roster, which is the case for Denver and Carolina.

I gotta say I disagree.  The Panthers are betting that fields and Jones are not good, and there's a good chance they're right.  Any qb you take in the first round you need to invest a lot in, and if they aren't good, you (as a GM) are probably going to be fired.  As a GM, if the evaluations of Fields/Jones were that they were mediocre prospects, I wouldn't want to bet my career on them either. 

11 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Counterpoint: if a team drafted QBs that were awesome and used those to get other players of equal value, they'd be drafting super awesome. This would be the @Whiskeyjack version of real drafting, where you get the best high value players and then worry about specific positions a bit later to a larger extent.

It's pretty hard to demonstrate the value of your quarterback if you already have an above average qb, unless your starter gets hurt.  Without strong game tape, the young player will be assumed to suck and won't have any trade value.  Thus if KC wanted to start using 1st round picks on quarterbacks, that is unlikely to pay off in terms of draft capital. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It's pretty hard to demonstrate the value of your quarterback if you already have an above average qb, unless your starter gets hurt.  Without strong game tape, the young player will be assumed to suck and won't have any trade value.  Thus if KC wanted to start using 1st round picks on quarterbacks, that is unlikely to pay off in terms of draft capital. 

The Pats for a while disagree quite a bit. 

[DanteGabriel]

Have people seen the Lawrence-Jones hair swap thing yet? I don't know what to make of this but I can't look away.

 

[Maithanet]

28 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

The Pats for a while disagree quite a bit. 

I don't really see it.  Matt Cassel was a 7th rounder in 2005 and he got good value after starting for a year in 2008.  Other than that?

Kevin O'Connell (3rd in 2008, released in 2009)

Zac Robinson (7th in 2010, released that same year)

Ryan Mallet (3rd in 2011, traded for a conditional 6th rounder in 2014)

Jimmy G (2nd in 2014, traded for a 2nd rounder in 2018)

Jacoby Brisett (3rd in 2016, traded for Philip Dorsett, who is a replacement level receiver with less than 700 yards receiving over 3 seasons in NE)

Danny Etling (7th in 2018, waived in 2019). 

 

So after investing 4 day 2 picks and 2 seventh rounders, the Patriots had...one day 2 pick and a mediocre receiver to show for it.  I guess if you throw in Cassel it would be 3 day 2 picks, but Cassel got the unusual opportunity of starting for an entire year on a good team.  This really demonstrates that if you want good value on your young QB in the trade market, you have to get him a chance to play multiple games.  IF he gets a chance to play and IF he looks good, then you can get some value for him, as Cassel and Garrappolo did, but that's two things that have to go right before you get much of anything. 

[briantw]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Have people seen the Lawrence-Jones hair swap thing yet? I don't know what to make of this but I can't look away.

 

Mac Jones would get a few looks at 2am when the bar's closing.  

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, briantw said:

Mac Jones would get a few looks at 2am when the bar's closing.  

Are you kidding? And I thought Liam McHugh was a little snack of a boy!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, briantw said:

Mac Jones would get a few looks at 2am when the bar's closing.  

Probably well before that. I know a few women who look almost exactly like that. 

 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Have people seen the Lawrence-Jones hair swap thing yet? I don't know what to make of this but I can't look away.

This has completely changed my opinion on Mac Jones.  How so?  NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

[dbunting]

15 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Have people seen the Lawrence-Jones hair swap thing yet? I don't know what to make of this but I can't look away.

 

I really thought Jones was a SC anchor, sideline reporter or something!

[Maithanet]

On 5/13/2021 at 1:09 PM, Maithanet said:

And if you're talking about the 4th best quarterback in any given year, there's a strong chance he's going to be bad.  In contrast, if there's a defensive player that checks all the boxes of a top 10 pick, the odds are better he's going to be a contributor, if not a star. 

I actually was wondering about this but didn't have time to check.  Looking at top 10 picks (elite prospects), are the qbs busts more often than other positions?  I suspect that they are, and I'm going to see.  I'll categorize players into busts, starters and stars (2+ pro bowls).  I'll look at guys from 2010-2015, so that the guys have enough time to develop earn those pro bowl spots. 

2010

QB - Bradford (Starter)

Non-QB:  Bust 1, Starter 2, Star 6

2011

QB - Star (Newton), Bust (Locker, Gabbert)

Non-QB:  Star 7 (That draft was damn good)

2012

QB Bust (Griffin), Starter (Tannehill), Star (Luck)

Non-QB: Bust 3, Starter 1, Star 3

2013

QBs (0)

Non-QB: Bust 4, Starter 3, Star 3

2014

QBs Bust (Bortles)

Non-QB:  Bust 2, Starter 2, Star 5,

2015

QBs Bust (WInston, Mariota)

Non-QB: Bust 1, Starter 3, Star 4

 

Overall

QBs Bust 6, Starter 2, Star 2

Non QBs Bust 11, Starter 11, Star 28

 

I'll admit this is a small-ish sample, but that is pretty definitive IMO that teams are well aware that QBs are much more valuable than other positions, and spending premium draft picks on them in the hope that they work out.  It is very hard to look at this list and say "teams shouldn't be passing on quarterbacks so often", particularly when the two star qbs of this six year period went #1 overall, as well as one of the two starters.  Yes, there were several good/great quarterbacks taken outside the top 10 in those drafts (Wilson, Cousins, Carr), but the hit rate on second round and later qbs is even lower. 

[Maithanet]

Ryan Kerrigan leaving WFT for Philly.  He is the all-time sack leader for WFT with 95.5 in ten seasons. 

I do feel like Kerrigan has been a bit underrated for his career.  He's never been the best or even in the top 3 pass rushers in the league, but he was the 5th or 6th best for like 8 or 9 years, and he was almost never injured.  He was the one reliable member of the WFT defense that until a couple of years ago was always very thin on talent. 

As my fandom of WFT ended back in 2018, he was one of the few guys still left who I felt some actual connection to, so a bit more of my connection to the team goes with him. Thoughts @Jaime L ?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This is pure magic:

 

[Rhom]

19 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is pure magic:

 

Honestly never noticed that the Falcons logo kinda looks like an F.   

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I wish he had named names:
 

Quote

Former NFL offensive lineman and assistant coach Eugene Chung, who is Korean, says he was told he was "not the right minority" while interviewing for an NFL coaching job this offseason.

"It was said to me, 'Well, you're really not a minority,'" Chung said during a webinar Thursday, according to The Boston Globe, adding, "I was like, 'Wait a minute. The last time I checked, when I looked in the mirror and brushed my teeth, I was a minority.'"

According to Chung, after he asked the interviewer to explain, he was told he was "not the right minority that we're looking for."

Chung did not identify the team in question but said he was stunned to hear such a comment.

"I asked about it, and as soon as the backtracking started, I was like, 'Oh no, no, no, no, no, you said it. Now that it's out there, let's talk about it,'" Chung said, according to the Globe. "It was absolutely mind-blowing to me that, in 2021, something like that is actually a narrative."

But Chung wouldn't point a finger at the NFL for the incident or his treatment.

"I'm not sitting here bashing the league at all, because there are great mentors and there are great coaches that embrace the difference," Chung said. "It's just when the Asians don't fit the narrative, that's where my stomach churns a little bit."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31490565/eugene-chung-says-was-called-not-right-minority-nfl-coaching-interview