Ceiling v floor in this draft

[nfoligno]

I read a posters comments on a player, and it got me wonder. What do you all think is more important in this draft, for the bears. Often player, particularly after the 1st, who have the highest value may also come w/ a lower floor, or a great bust potential. Esentially, you have the chance to get a guy who could have been a 1st round pick, and could be a pro bowl player (or maybe just very good) but comes w/ some flags, whether it be character, injury history/potential, tweaner, position change, etc.

 

So the question I have is, are we better off going after the player w/ a lower ceiling, but higher floor, or the player w/ the higher ceiling yet lower floor?

 

For me, I have to take the higher floor guy. That is for the 1st round, and frankly, much of the draft. I think when a team is more set though its roster, you can take greater risks, but that is not us. We need to come out of this draft w/ a high number of players who can not only contribute, but likely start. We just can not afford to draft busts this year, and I think higher floor guys should be looked upon higher.

 

I have heard about the WR Kelly potentially slipping to the 2nd, partially due to a bad 40, but also due to knee issues. I have heard about Manningham dropping due to character. While I am not always one to avoid red flag players, this year I think we should.

[dawhizz]

That sounds great. The problem is, ceiling v. floor debates are much better in theory than they are in practice. Courtney Brown and Robert Gallery were widely considered "safe" picks. Ladanian Tomlinson and Brian Urlacher were both pretty big risks for different reasons (LT was coming from a lower level of competition, Url was changing positions). Michael Haynes was thought of as a "high floor" player, and we all know how that turned out. Certainly, if there are big red flags about character, the Bears have shown a willingness to do their due dilligence and separate the thugs from the misunderstood (with admittedly mixed results). But I'm not sure there's any definitve evidence to suggest that picking a "high-floor" player instead of a "high ceiling" player is actually the more effective overall strategy, let alone result in a better team.

[madlithuanian]

Great topic!

 

I really tend to think higher floor guy overall...but, as with many things, it just depends on the circumstance. There are those guys out there that you go for the higher cieling (like a Randy Moss for instance...or McFadden in this draft).

 

My personal attitude is go for more of a sure thing in the first and then get risky after that. But, sometimes that just isn't the case.

 

FYI - I'd rather chance it on Manningham than Kelly. The knees really concern me. As does character...but something guys do mature out of college.

 

I read a posters comments on a player, and it got me wonder. What do you all think is more important in this draft, for the bears. Often player, particularly after the 1st, who have the highest value may also come w/ a lower floor, or a great bust potential. Esentially, you have the chance to get a guy who could have been a 1st round pick, and could be a pro bowl player (or maybe just very good) but comes w/ some flags, whether it be character, injury history/potential, tweaner, position change, etc.

 

So the question I have is, are we better off going after the player w/ a lower ceiling, but higher floor, or the player w/ the higher ceiling yet lower floor?

 

For me, I have to take the higher floor guy. That is for the 1st round, and frankly, much of the draft. I think when a team is more set though its roster, you can take greater risks, but that is not us. We need to come out of this draft w/ a high number of players who can not only contribute, but likely start. We just can not afford to draft busts this year, and I think higher floor guys should be looked upon higher.

 

I have heard about the WR Kelly potentially slipping to the 2nd, partially due to a bad 40, but also due to knee issues. I have heard about Manningham dropping due to character. While I am not always one to avoid red flag players, this year I think we should.

[jason]

I believe that a lot of the time, if you want to get the true superstars, you have to take more chances than the Bears do with high-risk/high-reward guys.

 

I'm willing to overlook all the problems a guy has (as long as they are relatively minor), when the guy is destroying other teams on the field.

 

It hasn't been too long ago that I mentioned on the other board that it was a distinct possibility to get both Randy Moss and Terrell Owens. I was roundly criticized for even the thought. I guess that's how many fans feel. I, however, am willing to sacrifice all for a Super Bowl and a great team. I could care less years from now if someone said, "Yeah, but you guys had a team full of thugs and douche-bags." Just like Cowboy fans of today, and their multiple championships to celebrate, I am pretty sure I wouldn't care.

[nfoligno]

I usually follow the same train of thought. In the first, maybe the 2nd too, go for high floor guys. After that, you can start getting more and more risk taking, going for the high ceiling guys w/ red flags. This year though, I feel we need to be more conservative beyond the 1st or 2nd rounds. I simply feel we can less afford a bust now, than in a year we are more set and looking for future stars or current depth.

 

W/ regard to Manningham, I want no part of him. Its one thing to make mistakes in college. We all do. It another thing to not learn from those mistakes, or own up to them. I simply do not see the potential for growing w/ him, at least not the liklihood that would have me draft him.

[madlithuanian]

I do hear you...we need to get base hits on every pick this year. I'd settle for a few triples, and an out. But that's about it.

 

No argument there on Manningham...I really do not want him. But I'd take him at a certain point in the draft...

 

I usually follow the same train of thought. In the first, maybe the 2nd too, go for high floor guys. After that, you can start getting more and more risk taking, going for the high ceiling guys w/ red flags. This year though, I feel we need to be more conservative beyond the 1st or 2nd rounds. I simply feel we can less afford a bust now, than in a year we are more set and looking for future stars or current depth.

 

W/ regard to Manningham, I want no part of him. Its one thing to make mistakes in college. We all do. It another thing to not learn from those mistakes, or own up to them. I simply do not see the potential for growing w/ him, at least not the liklihood that would have me draft him.

[nfoligno]

I understand what you are saying, but would have a couple responses.

 

One. We are talking about the draft. TO and Moss are a pair of proven studs w/ baggage. In the draft, we are talking about unproven potential studs w/ baggage. The proven v unproven is a big difference.

 

Two. While I am not often in favor of getting character-challanged players, I do see the times it is beneficial. NE is a prime example. When you have built something solid, and you are looking for that one player/piece to put you over the top, you can better take on the challenge. When you have a team filled w/ established veterans, you can take on that challenge. When you have a coaching staff experienced w/ those character challenged players, you can better handle the situations that come up. IMHO, we fit none of those areas. I do not believe our staff is in a great position to deal w/ a TO or Moss. We do not have the veteran leadership on offense to deal w/ such a personality, and in particular, not at QB where most teams look for leadership. And we are so weak on offense, that a player like that may well help, but the offense will likely still struggle, and these players have proven they only create problems when their offenses struggle.

 

Three. When I posed the question, I mentioned character as one red flags, but that was only one flag.

 

Four. Last year, I could have understood going for a greater risk player. Though it was a deck of cards, we were coming off a SB appearance and it seemed as though we were in search of depth and future more than immediate starters. This year, we are in search of numerous immediate starters, and I simply feel are less in position to take big risks. Hitting on 2 of our first three picks this draft could quickly put up back in contention. Missing on 2 of our first three picks (especially the 1st) could set up back years, IMHO.

[nfoligno]

I like the baseball analogy.

 

All-pro stud = home run

 

pro bowl alternate = triple

 

upper tier starter = double

 

average starter = single

 

quality depth, or rotation player = sacrifice

 

deep depth or worse = strike out

 

Everyone loves the idea of home runs. Especially skill positions, which would be like an out of the park home run. At the same time, as much as a home run would help, I think a strike out would hurt more.

 

To continue the baseball analogy. You are down 10-2 heading into the 7th. A home run is a great idea, but it is one run. When you are down like that, I think it is more key to simply get on base and get something going.

 

In this draft, I think we need a group of singles and doubles. We can hope some turn into triples or better, but I think the key is getting on base, as we simply can not afford strike outs.

[madlithuanian]

nfo, regarding your assessment on teams like NE...I could not agree more. Those kinds of organization can take those cahnces...and reel people in. Heck, the Bulls did it with Rodamn in a similar type of situation. If Jordan and Phil Jackson weren't there, it never would have happened.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but would have a couple responses.

 

One. We are talking about the draft. TO and Moss are a pair of proven studs w/ baggage. In the draft, we are talking about unproven potential studs w/ baggage. The proven v unproven is a big difference.

 

Two. While I am not often in favor of getting character-challanged players, I do see the times it is beneficial. NE is a prime example. When you have built something solid, and you are looking for that one player/piece to put you over the top, you can better take on the challenge. When you have a team filled w/ established veterans, you can take on that challenge. When you have a coaching staff experienced w/ those character challenged players, you can better handle the situations that come up. IMHO, we fit none of those areas. I do not believe our staff is in a great position to deal w/ a TO or Moss. We do not have the veteran leadership on offense to deal w/ such a personality, and in particular, not at QB where most teams look for leadership. And we are so weak on offense, that a player like that may well help, but the offense will likely still struggle, and these players have proven they only create problems when their offenses struggle.

 

Three. When I posed the question, I mentioned character as one red flags, but that was only one flag.

 

Four. Last year, I could have understood going for a greater risk player. Though it was a deck of cards, we were coming off a SB appearance and it seemed as though we were in search of depth and future more than immediate starters. This year, we are in search of numerous immediate starters, and I simply feel are less in position to take big risks. Hitting on 2 of our first three picks this draft could quickly put up back in contention. Missing on 2 of our first three picks (especially the 1st) could set up back years, IMHO.

[nfoligno]

We are talking about the draft. We are talking about a basic crapshoot. There is no "definitve evidence" proving anything. In the draft, you can see 100 QBs taken in the 6th fail, but teams will continue to draft QBs in the 6th looking for the next Brady.

 

W/o question you have your LTs and Urlachers. Players who had some flags, and who had high ceilings, but lower floors. No question you have plenty of examples of such players. But that isn't the point. Take the WR examples of Kelly and Manningham. Kelly for injury/speed and Manningham for character. 10 years from now, either one could be considered a perennial all pro. That is their potential. But their floor is flipping burgers.

 

So it is back to the question of floor v ceiling. You can point to Gallery and LT as examples, but I would argue those are exceptions more than examples. Though w/ Gallery, I would say he is some ways proves the point. He had high potential, but his floor was higher too, and I would argue that proved true. Gallery never became the stud LT, but he is today a very, very good OG. Very good starting OG is a fairly high floor.

 

Compare him, for example, to the player picked #2 (same as Gallery) the prior year. Charles Rogers was taken by Det. His ceiling was incredible, but he has some big flags too, and had a lower floor. While Gallery's floor was as a starter at a different position on the OL, Charles floor has proven far worse.

[nfoligno]

Another analogy I like. Ever go to Vegas, or simply hit a casino?

 

If you win $1,000, it feels pretty damn good. You can go out and buy a new TV, or something.

 

If you lose $1,000, it is worse than just a bad feeling. Lose $1,000, and suddenly you are looking at whether or not you can pay all your bills. If you are married, you are worried about what your wife is going to do if/when she finds out.

 

It has always been my opinion that losing $1,000 is more negative than winning $1,000 is positive, even though you are talking about the same amount of money.

[madlithuanian]

I'm with ya on that!

 

...and who knows...a guy down on the roster some could end up being a HR hitter...

 

I like the baseball analogy.

 

All-pro stud = home run

 

pro bowl alternate = triple

 

upper tier starter = double

 

average starter = single

 

quality depth, or rotation player = sacrifice

 

deep depth or worse = strike out

 

Everyone loves the idea of home runs. Especially skill positions, which would be like an out of the park home run. At the same time, as much as a home run would help, I think a strike out would hurt more.

 

To continue the baseball analogy. You are down 10-2 heading into the 7th. A home run is a great idea, but it is one run. When you are down like that, I think it is more key to simply get on base and get something going.

 

In this draft, I think we need a group of singles and doubles. We can hope some turn into triples or better, but I think the key is getting on base, as we simply can not afford strike outs.

[madlithuanian]

Good analogy as well.

 

Although as many times as I've been to Vegas, I've never come close to winning or losing that much! As an accountant by trade, I know the value of money too well, and only play for fun (more in the few hundred realm...just enough to make it interesting...but not enough to worry about my mortgage payment!) I figure, if I lose I'm just paying for the "good time" with freinds and the free drinks! (I usually break even...but drink for free!)

 

Another analogy I like. Ever go to Vegas, or simply hit a casino?

 

If you win $1,000, it feels pretty damn good. You can go out and buy a new TV, or something.

 

If you lose $1,000, it is worse than just a bad feeling. Lose $1,000, and suddenly you are looking at whether or not you can pay all your bills. If you are married, you are worried about what your wife is going to do if/when she finds out.

 

It has always been my opinion that losing $1,000 is more negative than winning $1,000 is positive, even though you are talking about the same amount of money.

[nfoligno]

I have damn near stopped gambling all together in Vegas. I have come to know so much of the "free" side of Vegas, that I go for the fun, and gamble only a tad. No matter how much I try, once I start gambling, I have a hard time knowing when to say when. Especially if I throw down at a craps table.

[madlithuanian]

Ahhh! The dice! I have amy a friend that succumb to the dice! I've never felt the bug...I just play blackjack. I'm a numbers guy...so unless I'm at a shoe...I can do OK.

 

After all, they have to pay for all those lights somehow!

 

 

 

I have damn near stopped gambling all together in Vegas. I have come to know so much of the "free" side of Vegas, that I go for the fun, and gamble only a tad. No matter how much I try, once I start gambling, I have a hard time knowing when to say when. Especially if I throw down at a craps table.

[DrunkBomber]

I think its very circumstantial. Depending on needs, depth, cap space...There are so many variables. However, take a draft like this years. We have too many needs to really gamble, but look at a team like New England. They can do a lot more with that pick and wont be hurt as bad if it doesnt pan out. There are no more sure things in the NFL draft anymore though.

[nfoligno]

If you go back to my original post, I asked how we (as the bears) should be looking at the draft (this year).

 

I agree it varies between year to year and team to team, but I was simply asking about us, this year, and it appears we agree. I do not think we can afford to gample and take big risks. I am not saying we don't look at player's ceilings, but at the same time, I simply think the player's floor must be a major factor.

 

Defense and STs are great, and we can not afford (IMHO) to take 3+ years to get the offense into shape, and 3 years is generous if we start drafting busts.

[Mongo3451]

I read a posters comments on a player, and it got me wonder. What do you all think is more important in this draft, for the bears. Often player, particularly after the 1st, who have the highest value may also come w/ a lower floor, or a great bust potential. Esentially, you have the chance to get a guy who could have been a 1st round pick, and could be a pro bowl player (or maybe just very good) but comes w/ some flags, whether it be character, injury history/potential, tweaner, position change, etc.

 

So the question I have is, are we better off going after the player w/ a lower ceiling, but higher floor, or the player w/ the higher ceiling yet lower floor?

 

This is a mind racking question that is impossible to nail. It's kinda like the "Do we draft for need or best availible talent question." IMO - solid is great, which would be the high floor. And high talent is great, which is your ceiling.

 

What I think our team lacks is old fashioned football players. Some people call them gamers. They just show up and find a way to get the job done. Is a healthy Mike Brown a high floor or high ceiling guy? Or is he just a gamer? I want guys that have the talent to play the game, but most of all, I want instinct and passion. Most people say Mike Brown is slow, so he would be a high floor guy in some eyes. But, isn't his impact to the team high ceiling? Slow Mike Brown beats fast Daniel Manning to the spot every time!!

 

The above is why I am not a fan of Lovie. He is a fan of football players in shorts. Who has more talent Rex or Kyle? This is why I like Orton over Rex. Orton is a gamer, Rex is a practice fluff girl, jacking you off before the game starts. I want football players.

[nfoligno]

Love some of your comments.

 

Yes, I think our team, and many others, covet athletes over football players. You ask how Mike Brown would be viewed. Today, he would be viewed as a high ceiling (potential pro bowl) w/ bottomed out floor due to injuries. If you go back to the draft though, he would have been considered a high floor, mid level ceiling. His lack of pure (40 time in shorts) athleticism would have lowered his perceived ceiling, yet his intelligence and instincts seen in college would have raised his floor. Daniel Manning was the opposite. Due to his athleticism, his ceiling was sky high, but due to his playing in a small school, and questionable instincts seen in college, he floor was bottom out level.

 

Great example. If both were in the draft, I would far more prefer a Mike Brown over a Daniel Manning. Putting all prejudices aside, Brown would reflect the football player who may never be in the pro bowl, but is a very good starter and helps your defense. DM would reflect a player who could be a pro bowler and flat out dominate, but could also be flipping burgers in a few years if he simply doesn't get it.

 

W/ regard to Orton v Rex, I am not sure this is a great example. Rex is considered a gamer too. He does not have the measurables, athleticism, a rocket arm to compensate for other negatives. Basically, he lacks many of the intangibles, but has a "moxy" the staff love. Orton actually has many of those intangibles, but has not shown the same moxy.

[madlithuanian]

That's the funniest thing I've read in eons!!!!

 

Kudos!

 

 

I agree...but gamers are so hard to find.

 

This is a mind racking question that is impossible to nail. It's kinda like the "Do we draft for need or best availible talent question." IMO - solid is great, which would be the high floor. And high talent is great, which is your ceiling.

 

What I think our team lacks is old fashioned football players. Some people call them gamers. They just show up and find a way to get the job done. Is a healthy Mike Brown a high floor or high ceiling guy? Or is he just a gamer? I want guys that have the talent to play the game, but most of all, I want instinct and passion. Most people say Mike Brown is slow, so he would be a high floor guy in some eyes. But, isn't his impact to the team high ceiling? Slow Mike Brown beats fast Daniel Manning to the spot every time!!

 

The above is why I am not a fan of Lovie. He is a fan of football players in shorts. Who has more talent Rex or Kyle? This is why I like Orton over Rex. Orton is a gamer, Rex is a practice fluff girl, jacking you off before the game starts. I want football players.

[madlithuanian]

Rex a gamer? Huh? Does that include when he makes a mistake, he keeps making mistakes? He's got attitude, but no on field moxie in my opinion. The guy get flustered and turns into a blunder machine. Orton, doesn't appear to get flustered. He toughs it out.

 

Love some of your comments.

 

Yes, I think our team, and many others, covet athletes over football players. You ask how Mike Brown would be viewed. Today, he would be viewed as a high ceiling (potential pro bowl) w/ bottomed out floor due to injuries. If you go back to the draft though, he would have been considered a high floor, mid level ceiling. His lack of pure (40 time in shorts) athleticism would have lowered his perceived ceiling, yet his intelligence and instincts seen in college would have raised his floor. Daniel Manning was the opposite. Due to his athleticism, his ceiling was sky high, but due to his playing in a small school, and questionable instincts seen in college, he floor was bottom out level.

 

Great example. If both were in the draft, I would far more prefer a Mike Brown over a Daniel Manning. Putting all prejudices aside, Brown would reflect the football player who may never be in the pro bowl, but is a very good starter and helps your defense. DM would reflect a player who could be a pro bowler and flat out dominate, but could also be flipping burgers in a few years if he simply doesn't get it.

 

W/ regard to Orton v Rex, I am not sure this is a great example. Rex is considered a gamer too. He does not have the measurables, athleticism, a rocket arm to compensate for other negatives. Basically, he lacks many of the intangibles, but has a "moxy" the staff love. Orton actually has many of those intangibles, but has not shown the same moxy.