Day 3!
|
Day 3!
|
Yesterday, 09:43 PM
(Yesterday, 09:28 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Read that again and then ask yourself, "am i being honest or just taking the piss?". I'd say consider all draft picks, when accessing drafting, but that's just me ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
Yesterday, 09:47 PM
(Yesterday, 09:41 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's one flavor and it's cool. Awesome. You make me laugh all the time and lighten my day lots of times. We all do our thing and you do yours well Rfaulk. 
1
Yesterday, 11:19 PM
(Yesterday, 09:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd say consider all draft picks, when accessing drafting, but that's just me Would you feel better if i worded it like this? We know Burrow and Chase were grand slam draft picks. Other than those two, how would you grade everyone else that wasn't a top 5 pick in the last X drafts? "The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
Yesterday, 11:22 PM
(Yesterday, 11:19 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Would you feel better if i worded it like this? they need to include Burrow at number 1 to fit their narrative that Duke isnt well below average at drafting for the last decade. Hell, even with the burrow pick, theyre still poor at drafting
Yesterday, 11:27 PM
(Yesterday, 11:22 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: they need to include Burrow at number 1 to fit their narrative that Duke isnt well below average at drafting for the last decade. Hell, even with the burrow pick, theyre still poor at drafting Or some include Burrow and Chase because we drafted them, but you're right. "They" want to alter reality to fit their narrative.
Yesterday, 11:28 PM
(Yesterday, 11:19 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Would you feel better if i worded it like this? I feel fine regardless. Chase was a "Grand Slam" pick, but 4 teams passed on him. As to your question, I answered it the first time you asked, but wasn't allowed to count people we drafted who are no longer on the team.
Today, 12:16 AM
(Yesterday, 11:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I feel fine regardless. Chase was a "Grand Slam" pick, but 4 teams passed on him. Who said you weren't allowed. I did clarify that those that were drafted who were at least good players, who aren't here anymore, is a different FO argument. I counted them though since the whole point of this exercise is...drafting. It's not out of the question to take 2 top 5 picks and set them aside so you can evaluate 55 other picks to determine if their drafting is good or bad. If you assigned points for each player and where they were drafted, including them would obviously raise their grade but it wouldn't move the needle enough to conclude that they're bad at drafting college players. Specifically, anyone outside the top 10 and especially, anyone after the 3rd round. Just for shitz and giggz i went and looked at Philly, KC, the Bills and 49ers drafts as a comparison. I looked at players drafted 4th round or later and their wAV (weighted career approximate value). It's a subjective thing but it can be used as a comparison. The Eagles have 10 guys with a wAV in double digits (10+). Including guys like; Josh Sweat (6th rd) Jordan Mailata (7th rd) The Chiefs have 5 guys. Including guys like; Trey Smith (6th rd) L'Jarius Sneed (4th rd) Nick Allegretti (7th rd) The Bills have 8 guys. Including guys like; Taron Johnson (4th rd) Wyatt Teller (5th rd) Matt Milano (5th rd) The 49ers have 13 guys. Including guys like; Jauan Jennings (7th rd) Dre Greenlaw (5th rd) George Kittle (5th rd) The Bengals have 3. Evan McPherson (5th rd) kicker Michael Jordan (4th rd) started more career games for teams not named Bengals and almost got the franchise QB killed. Jake Elliott (5th rd) kicker that never even suited up for the team in a regular season game. "The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
1
Today, 12:27 AM
(Today, 12:16 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Who said you weren't allowed. I did clarify that those that were drafted who were at least good players, who aren't here anymore, is a different FO argument. I counted them though since the whole point of this exercise is...drafting. More games by you. If you think they Bengals are one of the worst, then compare them to the worst teams by records, not the best. I am not even arguing Bengals have drafted well, they have not overall. But your goal to show they are the worst can't be measured by comparing them to the best. I you are going to remove top 5 picks, then also remove round and 6 and 7 against the worst and then see where it stands. You may be 100% correct, Tonin is the worst in the NFL, but you have shown zero proof to back up that claim. You have proven there ae not the best, we know that already. Please use 2025 free agency to fix the trenches, not the draft!!!!!!!!
1
Today, 12:58 AM
(Today, 12:16 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Who said you weren't allowed. I did clarify that those that were drafted who were at least good players, who aren't here anymore, is a different FO argument. I counted them though since the whole point of this exercise is...drafting. So if the point of the exercise was drafting, then why point out that they are no longer on the team? I assume you want folks to agree that we have not been the best drafting team in the NFL over the last 5 years. So yeah, I agree with that. But when I'm asked to evaluate our drafts, I'll include everyone we drafted.
Today, 01:09 AM
(Today, 12:27 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: More games by you. If you think they Bengals are one of the worst, then compare them to the worst teams by records, not the best. First, this is no game. People that don't want to face the truth find silly things to sidetrack the conversation. I don't like traveling down side roads. Second, i don't know, nor have i conclusively stated they're the worst. I just know they're not good. For you and any other sunshiner, there are actually things between best and worst. Lots of things. Third, you should read the things you type before hitting submit. The Bengals fancy themselves a SB contender and with Burrow, Chase and this offense, they have good reason to. Why in the world would i compare them to the worst drafting teams when thier stated goal is to win the SB? Teams that win and annually contend for SBs usually draft well. That is EXACTLY why i'm comparing them to teams that, objectively, draft well. It would make zero sense for me to compare them to bad drafting teams unless my one and only goal was to prove they'll never contend for a SB because they draft so poorly. My wish is that they would draft better so that the team i root for, the team i've spent the largest portion of my life figuratively dying for, would finally stand on that platform at the end of the super bowl, holding up the championship trophy. Why you continue to climb up my ass, disagreeing with almost everything i say that's not supremely positive is baffling, because the ONE AND ONLY THING I WANT is for this team to win a super bowl before i die. Drafting as poorly as they have has been a very clear sticking point for them accomplishing that goal. "The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
1
Today, 01:13 AM
Take a look at the ***** names of the late round picks of those other teams and show me ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of the Bengals picking a single player of any of those calibers.
Just one. "The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
Today, 01:25 AM
(Today, 12:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So if the point of the exercise was drafting, then why point out that they are no longer on the team? My dude. You need to get off the 'not on the team' train. Like i said, that's a diff argument and one i'm not even interested in talking about right now. Bottom line...their drafting history does not give them the benefit of the doubt for taking some of the players they did this year, who could bust just as easily as they boom. "The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
1
Today, 02:21 AM
(Today, 01:13 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Take a look at the ***** names of the late round picks of those other teams and show me ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of the Bengals picking a single player of any of those calibers. Chase Brown?
Today, 02:27 AM
Today, 02:36 AM
(Today, 02:27 AM)Frank Booth Wrote: the list was from 2017 to 2022 Ah, ok, so it's just in a certain cherry picked range of years to support his argument because it starts to fall apart if you go further back or further forward.
1
Today, 02:40 AM
(Today, 02:36 AM)Whatever Wrote: Ah, ok, so it's just in a certain cherry picked range of years to support his argument because it starts to fall apart if you go further back or further forward. He only posted it to 2022 because they say you need 3 years to determine if someone is a bust or not. But you can go before 2017 and find more awful drafts. 2014-2016 were also really really bad drafts that contributed to the Dalton teams missing the playoffs after 5 straight years. I’m sorry but duke and his 4 scouts aren’t good at their jobs. But maybe it’s just because there are only 4 of them. And the fact they don’t use advanced analytics like other teams do
1
Today, 02:42 AM
All I know is I just opened the first keg of "Wright's Riskey Rye Whiskey" and I need to order some labels cuz it's not bad lol.
Today, 03:24 AM
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
Today, 03:26 AM
(Today, 02:36 AM)Whatever Wrote: Ah, ok, so it's just in a certain cherry picked range of years to support his argument because it starts to fall apart if you go further back or further forward. Did you even read the original post from what you're replying to?............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... "The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
10 hours ago
(Yesterday, 09:41 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's one flavor and it's cool. I'm glad we have a variety of people on the board. A little goes a long way though, yknow?
1
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
