Redskins Sign Grossman

If you agree Leinart was rated lower than Ferguson, then the argument is over. They took Ferguson because he was rated higher, not because they decided on a philosophy of LT over QB. Thanks for proving my point.No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?

No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?

My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.

My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.

A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".

Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".

If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.

Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.

So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?

was just listening to the fan

rocky mac was asked about grossman/brennan

rocky was like we've played against grossman, doesn't look too good on film

said he's a fan of brennan, even before he came to the skins

A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".

Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".

If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.

Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.

So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?

1. Buster said David Carr is a good example of taking a QB before addressing the offensive line.

2. I asked if Mike Williams should have been taken instead.

3. You brought up Ferguson.

4. I said that was a bad example because there was no comparable quarterback rated as high as Ferguson.

5. Dirtbag said Leinart was the better prospect.

6. I cite Polian's commentary as to why that is probably not true.

7. After much-ado about what Polian meant, you finally say that Leinart is rated lower than Ferguson, which confirms what I said at point #4.

That's all there is to it. I can't help if you are having a disconnect and having one of your "Brees in a deep QB class" moments.

Technically the Jets first tried to trade up for Reggie Bush before deciding on Brick over Hot Tub

Please name the few teams that have been in similar situation that had success by drafting a LT in the first round and a QB in the second round as you suggested.2008 Dolphins, but first, why don't you name all the teams that have been in a similar situation who have had success, period.

yeah ruhskins, man i get what your saying but after campbell and ramsey, im kinda done picking up the scraps left on the QB table after teams with the high draft picks take the prime cuts of meat.

dont get me wrong, you can find great QBs after the first 10 picks but id rather we take an honest to goodness swing at one of the top qb prospects and not settle for the 3rd or 4th best qb available in the draft.

its just been so long since weve had a true great QB. sitting at no 4 i cant help but be enamored with the idea of taking a chance on a cream of the crop qb for once.If the prime cuts are underclassman, you're at the wrong butcher.

I don't actually think the prime cuts of this class are underclassmen, but again, that's a valuation problem with defined arbitrage opportunities. Your argument is that 1) arbitrage opportunities don't exist in the NFL draft (at least at QB), which by extension means that 2) drafting higher is drafting smarter. Which is something I disagree with philosophically.

At least, that's what I think I'm reading in that middle paragraph, that getting a great QB after the top ten picks requires good fortune. I don't know if that's what you were trying to say, but I'd agree to an extent. The idea is to get a player in the bottom half of the first round or in the second round that should have been rated in the top half of the first round. Drafting quarterbacks, at value, is one of the worst strategies that is common in the NFL draft. Quarterbacks need to be taken later than you have them rated.

And if there's no one that's rated higher on the big board than the pick suggests, there's nothing you can do to make the opportunity better. That's essentially playing with the hand you are dealt, and not moving in with whatever just because you are tired of taking down small pots.

So long as we didn't give this chump playing time or lots of money I'm cool. I'm sure he'll make a fine practice dummy for our defense.

1. Buster said David Carr is a good example of taking a QB before addressing the offensive line.

2. I asked if Mike Williams should have been taken instead.

3. You brought up Ferguson.

4. I said that was a bad example because there was no comparable quarterback rated as high as Ferguson.

5. Dirtbag said Leinart was the better prospect.

6. I cite Polian's commentary as to why that is probably not true.

7. After much-ado about what Polian meant, you finally say that Leinart is rated lower than Ferguson, which confirms what I said at point #4.

That's all there is to it. I can't help if you are having a disconnect and having one of your "Brees in a deep QB class" moments.

Yes, Polian obviously knows what subjective probability is and you don't, i.e hypothetically, he believes the Rams have a 60% chance of taking Bradford and 40% chance of taking Suh after considering all the sources he can find. It's highly doubtful he'll be surprised if the 40% event occurs. He probably had a plan if either player were taken before he could. If they taken random scrub #01, then they'll be surprised.

Related to that is that you also continue to assume that the GMs are in consensus all the damn time even though it wouldn't make any sense to reveal all the cards to the other franchises.

Final draft order does not necessarily reflect the draft boards of each individual franchise's scouting department, it's the manifestation of individual teams' FO's making decisions on which of the top prospects who are all going to go somewhere in the first round to choose. It's highly likely some teams rated Pacman higher than Rogers and vice versa, for example.

And actually, the Texans did not have a perceived need at LT at the time because they chose Tony Boselli to be that guy in the expansion draft. Since the percecption was that they were set at LT, they took a QB. So, the "Carr was simply the BPA" premise is suspect at best. They thought they had their tackle at the time, but in actuality, they didn't.
Even so, there's no way to know how much of a gap Leinart really had with Ferguson or what other incentives were in play when weighing the BPA vs. need for the Jets. So yeah, I'll retract that the Jets clearly thought Ferguson was better than Leinart because it's damn hard to weight the BPA vs. need incentive. They chose the fix OL and see what Pennington, etc can do. Al Davis probably just didn't believe he had the ridiculous measurables he wanted, Buffalo had to see what they had in Losman, a first-rounder, and Millen believed Kitna would be the guy. I already dealt with San Fran and Green Bay earlier. Because these teams between the 4th and 10th pick didn't have a pressing incentive for drafting a QB, it's hard to judge the Leinart was soooo ZOMG worse that he fell off a cliff down to #10. 'Zona, on the other hand, did not view Warner to be nothing more than a true stopgap to hold the fort until "the future one" develops. Nothing Warner did in his stint with the Giants would hint of what would happen in the last couple of years.


Not my problem you can't frame a syllogism to save your life.