The Tee Conundrum

[*ochocincos*]

(11-25-2024, 05:53 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: Receivers have the highest bust rate for 1st round picks dating back to 2000.  Every year people talk about the immediate production that they provide.  It’s a fallacy, more often than not, and is the biggest gamble there is.  

Article 1:

Round One Wide Receivers

The gold mine. The king of kings. If you’re drafting a receiver for fantasy football or your NFL team, it’s likely the first round ones hit at a higher rate. This shouldn’t be surprising, but the data does back up the age old adage that draft capital matters. First round wide receivers hit rate was about 50 percent in the data, with 20 out of 43 hitting.

Refining this to receivers taken top ten, the hit rate was nine out of 14. Injuries to Kevin White, a head-scratching pick of John Ross and a cheeseburger addiction for Sammy Watkins even skew the data to an even more positive light. This leaves a hit rate for the rest of the round as fairly close to round two (37 versus 38 percent) but still higher.

Article 2:

With that in mind, ESPN's Adam Schefter shared an interesting bit of data on social media, compiled by ESPN producer Paul Hembekides. He looked at first-round picks at every position between 2000-19 to determine a success rate -- or hit rate -- at each position to get an idea of what the surest and riskiest bets are for teams looking to nail their top pick.

According to the research, first-round quarterbacks hit at a rate of 46 percent, with 26 being hits and 30 being misses.

An interesting aspect in a year like this with so many high-profile wide receiver prospects can be found at the shockingly low hit rate at that position. Wide receivers were the riskiest of the first-round positions with a hit rate of just 27 percent -- 21 hits and 56 misses.

I'm sorry, but tagging Higgins again and costing >$26 mill is not worth just a 1000-yard WR, assuming he were to even stay healthy.

I get your point, but if I'm paying $26+ mill on someone in FA other than QB, I expect elite performance.
10+ sacks if a DL
Lockdown CB
Ball hawk FS with 5+ INTs
1200+ yard WR

You're not going to sell me on paying Higgins that much when defense and OL need help too.
I'll happily take a WR with less production for a fraction of the cost if it means I can invest that $$ into a better OL/defense.

So what's your proposal?
Pay Higgins $26+ mill, draft a new safety and pass rusher(s)?
If so, how do you guarantee better coverage, more turnovers, and better pass rush?

Bengals have 0 success on drafted DL in the Taylor era.
They have hit on 2 WRs drafted in the Top 40 - Higgins and Chase.
They have some but not great success drafting DBs - Hill, CTB, Turner all ok but none great (so far).
Bengals minimal success on OL in the draft - Mims is the only one giving much optimism from what we've seen.

[*Go Cards*]

(11-25-2024, 06:05 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'm sorry, but tagging Higgins again and costing >$26 mill is not worth just a 1000-yard WR, assuming he were to even stay healthy.

I get your point, but if I'm paying $26+ mill on someone in FA other than QB, I expect elite performance.
10+ sacks if a DL
Lockdown CB
Ball hawk FS with 5+ INTs
1200+ yard WR

You're not going to sell me on paying Higgins that much when defense and OL need help too.
I'll happily take a WR with less production for a fraction of the cost if it means I can invest that $$ into a better OL/defense.

So what's your proposal?
Pay Higgins $26+ mill, draft a new safety and pass rusher(s)?
If so, how do you guarantee better coverage, more turnovers, and better pass rush?

Bengals have 0 success on drafted DL in the Taylor era.
They have hit on 2 WRs drafted in the Top 40 - Higgins and Chase.
They have some but not great success drafting DBs - Hill, CTB, Turner all ok but none great (so far).
Bengals minimal success on OL in the draft - Mims is the only one giving much optimism from what we've seen.

But so many people are invested in his jersies and such to accept a common sense argument.