JA's 3rd Rounders-This is Scary!

[lemonej]

The list starts with Terrence Metcalf, Lance Briggs and Bernard Berrian from 2002 to 2004. At that point not bad hitting on 2 out of 3 with 1 All Pro and a decent play making WR. After no 3rd rounder in 2005 the picks get shaky at best. From 2006 to 2009 JA has picked 7 players in the 3rd round with Earl Bennett and Marcus Harrison being the most productive out of the bunch. Thats not up to par with how he did in the beginning. So when we try to predict what he will do, I wouldn't be surprised if some way the Bears acquired an additional 3rd rounder which has been his trend recently. I'm not quite sure how the compensatory picks are given out but, Wale's impending free agency might net that extra 3rd rounder. Whatever the case may be, this is one of the rounds he has taken chances in. Whether it be character issues or simply reaching for someone ahead of other scouts projections this is the round he does it in. He needs to hit on one this year or it will be "Business as usual".

 

Here is his 3rd round body of work:

 

2002 Terrence Metcalf

2003 Lance Briggs

2004 Bernard Berrian

2005 No Pick RMJ ?

2006 Dusty Dvoracek

2007 Garrett Wolfe, Michael Okwo

2008 Earl Bennett, Marcus Harrison

2009 Jarron Gilbert, Juaqin Iglesias

 

The one thing that seems to be a recent trend is drafting a DL to play DT 3 out of the last 4 years and the last 2 in a row.

[chitownman]

From what you have found, it is pretty scary to see the draft picks that Jack Ass has come up with in the third round. Only one for sure that has been worth a damn is Briggs and yet I can give you as an example Briggs crap that he spewed prior to getting his big contract when Jack Ass placed the Franchise Tag on him. Not a great citizen to really want to root for. Metcalf was not much of a player otherwise we would not have let him go and he would not be an unsigned free agent if he was worth anything. Berrian was another money grubber that really has not done much for Minnesota at this point. We all know the disappointments of Dvoracek, Wolfe should never of had a draft pick wasted on him as he is really to small to be hugely successful in the NFL, Okwo just never was anything, Bennett I am disappointed did not have a better year with being reunited with Cutler, Harrison so far seems to be worthwhile, Gilbert & Inglesias are still completely unknown as the coaches did not do anything to give them an opportunity to be on the field however, it looks like Inglesias may wind up being expendable. This does not bode well for the future and continues to prove to me that even though once in a while Jack Ass makes a great move (Getting Cutler), there are far to many more errors that Jack Ass makes to continue to ruin this team. Unfortunately for us, the accountant does not understand and has blind faith in Jack Ass and will not make the change that was needed back on January 4th. We'll have to suffer another year at least before ideally a true house cleaning may come about. Then again we are stuck with Accountant Boy as the President of this organization and he is to dumb to know any better that he is not qualified to be in charge of an NFL team.

[balta1701-A]

Can you give us a similar list for some other teams for comparison? How does the list look for the Colts, Steelers, Patriots, or Saints, and how does it look for the Rams, Lions, etc.

[LT2_3]

Here is his 3rd round body of work:

 

2002 Terrence Metcalf

2003 Lance Briggs

2004 Bernard Berrian

2005 No Pick RMJ ?

2006 Dusty Dvoracek

2007 Garrett Wolfe, Michael Okwo

2008 Earl Bennett, Marcus Harrison

2009 Jarron Gilbert, Juaqin Iglesias

 

The one thing that seems to be a recent trend is drafting a DL to play DT 3 out of the last 4 years and the last 2 in a row.

 

Well it all depends on how you look at things.

 

The way I see it, out of 10 guys, you have 2 that are too soon to tell, 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts. That's a 75% productive player rate with 2 incompletes.

 

WTF do you guys expect in the 3rd round anyway?

 

I've had similar conversations on other boards and it usually boils down to where you draw the line on whether a draft pick is successful. What I've found is that fans grade tougher on their own team than they do other teams.

 

The best teams in the league have similar numbers in similar rounds. For the Patriots, for Logan Mankins, there are Guss Scott, Shawn Crable, and Dave Thomas.

 

My point is that it's normal. It's like someone saying "OMG - you missed 5 days of work last year due to sickness!" But they fail to mention that the national average is a higher number than that.

 

This is the silly season where things get blown out of proportion. Angelo actually has a pretty good record in the third round when compared to the rest of the league.

[azbearsfan]

Well it all depends on how you look at things.

 

The way I see it, out of 10 guys, you have 2 that are too soon to tell, 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts. That's a 75% productive player rate with 2 incompletes.

 

WTF do you guys expect in the 3rd round anyway?

 

I've had similar conversations on other boards and it usually boils down to where you draw the line on whether a draft pick is successful. What I've found is that fans grade tougher on their own team than they do other teams.

 

The best teams in the league have similar numbers in similar rounds. For the Patriots, for Logan Mankins, there are Guss Scott, Shawn Crable, and Dave Thomas.

 

My point is that it's normal. It's like someone saying "OMG - you missed 5 days of work last year due to sickness!" But they fail to mention that the national average is a higher number than that.

 

This is the silly season where things get blown out of proportion. Angelo actually has a pretty good record in the third round when compared to the rest of the league.

 

 

Thats what I thought. For me, JA's strength is drafting in the lower rounds.

 

If you want to rip the guy, at least base it on his first rounders.....

[LT2_3]

Thats what I thought. For me, JA's strength is drafting in the lower rounds.

 

If you want to rip the guy, at least base it on his first rounders.....

 

To correct my post, I meant Nick Kaczur instead of Logan Mankins.

 

The key problem with an analysis like this is that unless you look at a guy's career over 20 years, it's always such a miniscule sample size and there are so many contributing factors.

 

Ron Wolfe's reputation was built with Favre and alot of smoke and mirrors.

[lemonej]

Well it all depends on how you look at things.

 

The way I see it, out of 10 guys, you have 2 that are too soon to tell, 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts. That's a 75% productive player rate with 2 incompletes.

 

WTF do you guys expect in the 3rd round anyway?

 

I've had similar conversations on other boards and it usually boils down to where you draw the line on whether a draft pick is successful. What I've found is that fans grade tougher on their own team than they do other teams.

 

The best teams in the league have similar numbers in similar rounds. For the Patriots, for Logan Mankins, there are Guss Scott, Shawn Crable, and Dave Thomas.

 

My point is that it's normal. It's like someone saying "OMG - you missed 5 days of work last year due to sickness!" But they fail to mention that the national average is a higher number than that.

 

This is the silly season where things get blown out of proportion. Angelo actually has a pretty good record in the third round when compared to the rest of the league.

First of all I forgot the worst of of his 3rd rounders Roe Williams the very first one. I didn't start this thread to bash JA ,I was just merely showing his trends during this round which will help us try and figure out which way he may go this year in the round.

 

BTW why should I care about how well another team does in the draft? I'm a Bear fan and want them to select players that can contribute to this team's success. Any other team can go in the toilet for all I care.

 

If you combine the 1st and 2nd rounds of his drafts with the 3rd round, which until recently was the first day of the draft, the team has gotten minimal return from what represents the bulk of the rookie salary cap each year. That combined with bonus money paid to the 1st rounders( Colombo, Haynes, Grossman and Benson) that didn't pan out is cause for concern. I know better than to get into cap conversation with you but, I don't consider it silly or out of proportion if I see two teams who were in the playoffs when the Bears made their Super Bowl run were there this year and the team that they played in the Super Bowl made it back and has continued to be a contender year after year. That tells me that something doesn't add up.

[defiantgiant]

WTF do you guys expect in the 3rd round anyway?

 

Bingo. There's still some good talent in the third round each year, but nobody's going to land good starters in the 3rd each year. Getting a player like Lance Briggs in the 3rd is a massive coup. By way of a for-instance, Baltimore has one of the best-drafting front offices in the league. Here are their third-rounders:

 

2009: Lardarius Webb, CB - looks like a good CB, could develop into a starter

2008: Tom Zbikowski, SS - backup safety and special teams player

2007: Yamon Figurs, WR - total bust at WR, disappointing kick returner for a guy that fast

2007: Marshal Yanda, OT - started his rookie year, now the swing backup at tackle behind Gaither and Oher

2006: David Pittman, CB - made one career start, was in the UFL last I heard

2005: No pick

2004: Devard Darling, WR - fewer than 600 yards receiving in 5 years with the NFL. Unable to keep a starting job with the Chiefs.

2003: Musa Smith, RB - Backup running back and special teamer

2002: No pick

 

...and that's from a front office that knows drafting. They got one potential starter, one borderline starter, a pair of backup/special teams guys, and three busts. You just can't hit on every draft pick in the 3rd...if there weren't some risk that a guy wasn't going to work out, chances are he wouldn't be there in the 3rd.

[madlithuanian]

But doesn't all this kind of prove we can't expect much out of this years' crop as the law of averages seems to dictate?

 

 

 

Bingo. There's still some good talent in the third round each year, but nobody's going to land good starters in the 3rd each year. Getting a player like Lance Briggs in the 3rd is a massive coup. By way of a for-instance, Baltimore has one of the best-drafting front offices in the league. Here are their third-rounders:

 

2009: Lardarius Webb, CB - looks like a good CB, could develop into a starter

2008: Tom Zbikowski, SS - backup safety and special teams player

2007: Yamon Figurs, WR - total bust at WR, disappointing kick returner for a guy that fast

2007: Marshal Yanda, OT - started his rookie year, now the swing backup at tackle behind Gaither and Oher

2006: David Pittman, CB - made one career start, was in the UFL last I heard

2005: No pick

2004: Devard Darling, WR - fewer than 600 yards receiving in 5 years with the NFL. Unable to keep a starting job with the Chiefs.

2003: Musa Smith, RB - Backup running back and special teamer

2002: No pick

 

...and that's from a front office that knows drafting. They got one potential starter, one borderline starter, a pair of backup/special teams guys, and three busts. You just can't hit on every draft pick in the 3rd...if there weren't some risk that a guy wasn't going to work out, chances are he wouldn't be there in the 3rd.

 

[LT2_3]

First of all I forgot the worst of of his 3rd rounders Roe Williams the very first one. I didn't start this thread to bash JA ,I was just merely showing his trends during this round which will help us try and figure out which way he may go this year in the round.

 

I get ya Lemonej. My defense of Angelo was more in response to the ranting person that posted just after you.

 

BTW why should I care about how well another team does in the draft? I'm a Bear fan and want them to select players that can contribute to this team's success. Any other team can go in the toilet for all I care.

 

I do too, I'm just sayin that it's a bit unrealistic to expect EVERY pick to pan out.

 

If you combine the 1st and 2nd rounds of his drafts with the 3rd round, which until recently was the first day of the draft, the team has gotten minimal return from what represents the bulk of the rookie salary cap each year. That combined with bonus money paid to the 1st rounders( Colombo, Haynes, Grossman and Benson) that didn't pan out is cause for concern. I know better than to get into cap conversation with you but, I don't consider it silly or out of proportion if I see two teams who were in the playoffs when the Bears made their Super Bowl run were there this year and the team that they played in the Super Bowl made it back and has continued to be a contender year after year. That tells me that something doesn't add up.

 

I don't get the rookie salary cap part because it's based on who you draft AFTER you draft them. It's not like you can simply decide to allocate it differently. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

 

Sure, we all want all of our picks to turn into superstars, it's just that it's an unrealistic expectation.Some guys just don't pan out. It's that way for ALL teams. Angelo really isn't that bad even when compared to the most successful teams in the league.

 

(I personally blame Lovie and his staff for failing to develop guys and playing the wrong ones.)

[madlithuanian]

I could be wrong, but I think what lemon was trying to say is given our failings in the early rounds, those picks eat up the most chunk of cash for rookies.

 

I don't get the rookie salary cap part because it's based on who you draft AFTER you draft them. It's not like you can simply decide to allocate it differently. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

 

[LT2_3]

I could be wrong, but I think what lemon was trying to say is given our failings in the early rounds, those picks eat up the most chunk of cash for rookies.

 

I don't understand the point of bringing that up. It's a sunk cost. You can't use it anywhere else. It's not like we could suddenly get more draft picks and it doesn't affect UDFAs either.

[madlithuanian]

I get his point. At least I think that's his point... It's that our pickets 1-3 historically have not been great, while 4-7 have been pleasing. Most the money is tied up in 1-3. Thus you're throwing big money at bad, but small money at good.

 

I'm not sure it progresses the argument or anything. I think he's just making an observation that the failure of getting studs (or blue chip players as nfo likes saying) in rounds 1-3 is simply costly... Whether that's a failing of the pick itself or of the coaching staff to develop said players is a different debate.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand the point of bringing that up. It's a sunk cost. You can't use it anywhere else. It's not like we could suddenly get more draft picks and it doesn't affect UDFAs either.

 

[LT2_3]

I get his point. At least I think that's his point... It's that our pickets 1-3 historically have not been great, while 4-7 have been pleasing. Most the money is tied up in 1-3. Thus you're throwing big money at bad, but small money at good.

 

I'm not sure it progresses the argument or anything. I think he's just making an observation that the failure of getting studs (or blue chip players as nfo likes saying) in rounds 1-3 is simply costly... Whether that's a failing of the pick itself or of the coaching staff to develop said players is a different debate.

 

The rookie pool only applies to the first year of a player's contract. So what difference does it make which player got how much of it after the only year that it counts? I could just be dense on this, but I really don't understand the point. You pay the same amount whether the players are good or bad. The could all suck or all be awesome. It always costs the same.

 

Also, the rookie pool is calculated AFTER the draft. So if you trade down from a top 5 pick to a late 1st rounder and a 1st rounder next year, you get a smaller rookie allocation this year. You can't spend it anywhere else.

 

I agree that we'd all like all of our picks to pan out, I just don't understand what the rookie pool has to do with it. Most players don't produce that much their first year anyway. The rookie pool is based on draft slot and that's it.

[chitownman]

So LT2_3, I am not able to have an opinion about a person that I still have no real faith in and I understand what you are saying about the third round however, if you look at everything overall through all the rounds that Angelo (or as I prefer, Jack Ass) and tell me truthfully you are completely satisfied with everyone that was chosen. I personally am not a fan nor will I ever be a fan of Jack Ass. For each positive step he takes, he takes at least three to four negative steps. The Bears have not had a decent General Manager or Talent Evaluator since Jerry Vanisi was let go from his position. Until someone who all the fans are able to respect and trust in regards to player evaluation and getting the right pieces in place. My point is if you look at the third rounders mentioned, you are able to show and look at things that prove that Jack Ass is not that great of a talent evaluator.

 

I get ya Lemonej. My defense of Angelo was more in response to the ranting person that posted just after you.

 

 

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Hopefull, while not flogging a dead horse, I think that was it. That the slots for picks 1-3 are of higher dollar amount, and thus seem more bust-like.

 

I think it's just simply saying whiffing on picks 1-3 sucks.

 

The rookie pool is based on draft slot and that's it.

 

[madlithuanian]

Rant away chitownman!

 

I'm sure folks want to hear some good complaining about this regime that isn't just coming from me!

 

 

 

['TD']

The way I see it, out of 10 guys, you have 2 that are too soon to tell, 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts. That's a 75% productive player rate with 2 incompletes.

 

75 percent prodctive player rate?

 

Terrence Metcalf? No...

 

Lance Briggs? friggin awesome

 

Bernard Berrian? productive, sure wanted paid and don't start where he plays at now tho after getting paid

 

Dusty D? Has no production so far

 

Garrett Wolfe? Not Productive and plays no roll

 

Okwo? not in the league

 

Bennett? Decent but not special

 

Harrison, has been gettin dogged on the boards, not produtive

 

Gilbert and Iglesias, unknown...

 

I see one Kick ass player, 2 productive players and 5 busts so far. I don't think just because you weren't cut, doesn't mean your productive. I see a 37.5 percent productive rate so far with 2 unknowns and a wasted 3rd rounder on a nickle back for a couple years.

 

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

[LT2_3]

So LT2_3, I am not able to have an opinion about a person that I still have no real faith in and I understand what you are saying about the third round however, if you look at everything overall through all the rounds that Angelo (or as I prefer, Jack Ass) and tell me truthfully you are completely satisfied with everyone that was chosen. I personally am not a fan nor will I ever be a fan of Jack Ass. For each positive step he takes, he takes at least three to four negative steps. The Bears have not had a decent General Manager or Talent Evaluator since Jerry Vanisi was let go from his position. Until someone who all the fans are able to respect and trust in regards to player evaluation and getting the right pieces in place. My point is if you look at the third rounders mentioned, you are able to show and look at things that prove that Jack Ass is not that great of a talent evaluator.

 

Dude - you are obviously welcome to your opinion - just as I am welcome to mine.

 

Curiously, Angelo did a fine job (SB) before Lovie was given more juice (after SB and new contract) in the decision making process of both draft picks and free agent acquisition.

 

I also wouldn't trust the coaching staff of Lovie's to develop a Polaroid photo.

 

Beyond that, I really admire the way Angelo handled the cap when there was one.

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. In fact, expect people to disagree even more strongly when you resort to childish name calling.

[LT2_3]

75 percent prodctive player rate?

 

Terrence Metcalf? No...

This depends on where you consider a player successful. In discussing this concept with others on other boards, in an effort to equalize a fan's criticalness of their own team when comparing the competency in drafting of different teams, it was universally agreed that if a player got an extension after his rookie contract expired, the player was not a bust even if they were a non-playing backup. In fact, it was one of the key factors that was universally agreed upon because it was one of the few objective criteria that could possibly be used.

 

In this instance, if we are comparing Angelo with Polian of the Colts, that means that we don't rate Polian's drafted, but non-playing OL backups as busts either.

 

Lance Briggs? friggin awesome

 

Bernard Berrian? productive, sure wanted paid and don't start where he plays at now tho after getting paid

 

Dusty D? Has no production so far

 

I'm with you on those guys. Why does where Berrian plays have anything to do with a discussion about 3rd rounder draft choices? He's obviously was a very good 3rd round draft pick.

 

Garrett Wolfe? Not Productive and plays no roll

 

Disagree. He was our top special teams tackler before getting injured. That's a definite role - I think it's ironic that he was developed by the special teams coach though.

 

Okwo? not in the league

 

Bennett? Decent but not special

 

I'm with you on those guys too.

 

Harrison, has been gettin dogged on the boards, not produtive

 

WTF does dogged on the boards mean? Internet posting fans don't like him? That's about as meaningful as a poll of Repubicans that say they think Palin is qualified to be President.

 

The bottom line is that he's in the rotation at DT and he's been somewhat productive. That is certainly not a bust unless you're using puffery to boost your point of view.

 

Gilbert and Iglesias, unknown...

 

I see one Kick ass player, 2 productive players and 5 busts so far. I don't think just because you weren't cut, doesn't mean your productive. I see a 37.5 percent productive rate so far with 2 unknowns and a wasted 3rd rounder on a nickle back for a couple years.

 

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

 

It IS a matter of perspective. It's a matter of motivation too. Are you trying to do an objective evaluation? Are you simply bitching and moaning in an effort to build public support for getting someone fired because your team isn't as successful as you would like?

 

Or the third option; (and I'm not aiming it at anyone - just mentioning that it exists) are you a generally unhappy person that uses the internet as their personal tampon to catch the flow when on the metaphorical rag?

 

Or if none of those fit your motivation in your mind, how would you characterize it?

[azbearsfan]

LT,

 

You are truly one of the few I specifically come to this board to read anymore.

 

Hilarious and thought provoking.

 

Keep it coming.

 

[Connorbear]

Dude - you are obviously welcome to your opinion - just as I am welcome to mine.

 

Curiously, Angelo did a fine job (SB) before Lovie was given more juice (after SB and new contract) in the decision making process of both draft picks and free agent acquisition.

 

I also wouldn't trust the coaching staff of Lovie's to develop a Polaroid photo.

 

Beyond that, I really admire the way Angelo handled the cap when there was one.

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. In fact, expect people to disagree even more strongly when you resort to childish name calling.

Personally I am starting to avoid posts with name calling. I simply see no point in it. Look, I understand many here want Lovie and JA fired and I am one of them. However, IMHO, attacking them by calling them names is pointless and reflects more on the poster than the person being attacked. I respect everyone's opinion here but I am simply tired of the constant personal attacks on the staff.

 

Peace

['TD']

This depends on where you consider a player successful. In discussing this concept with others on other boards, in an effort to equalize a fan's criticalness of their own team when comparing the competency in drafting of different teams, it was universally agreed that if a player got an extension after his rookie contract expired, the player was not a bust even if they were a non-playing backup. In fact, it was one of the key factors that was universally agreed upon because it was one of the few objective criteria that could possibly be used.

 

In this instance, if we are comparing Angelo with Polian of the Colts, that means that we don't rate Polian's drafted, but non-playing OL backups as busts either.

 

Other than the first 3, I think all of these players have been playing on their rookie contract. The extension rule that you and other message boards aggreed to is irrelevant IMO.

 

I'm with you on those guys. Why does where Berrian plays have anything to do with a discussion about 3rd rounder draft choices? He's obviously was a very good 3rd round draft pick.

 

The extra on Berrian was due to their being 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts listed in the post I replied to. Yes, he is a solid 3rd round pick. However, I wouldn't have counted him as a starter as he may have been considered in the previous post. He did start for the Bears at one point, but was not able to continue that role as he moved on. Ie. I don't consider Danielle Manning a starter at safety, even though he has started that position several times.

 

Disagree. He was our top special teams tackler before getting injured. That's a definite role - I think it's ironic that he was developed by the special teams coach though.

 

True, special teams contributions often gets lost in the shuffle. I had forgotten about that and was looking at him soley as a Running Back. That certainly wasn't the role he was drafted for, but yet he found a niche. I'm not sure how I would evaluate the pick without thinking about it a while, since I would probably expect more out of a 3rd rounder.

"WTF does dogged on the boards mean? Internet posting fans don't like him? That's about as meaningful as a poll of Repubicans that say they think Palin is qualified to be President.

 

The bottom line is that he's in the rotation at DT and he's been somewhat productive. That is certainly not a bust unless you're using puffery to boost your point of view."

It's no puffery to push my point of view. It was just saying look at other peoples point of views as him as a player so far. Personally, I had compared him to Bennett and got knocked down a peg by everyone. They basically said he showed up fat, out of shape, and showed no potential. While it may be early to label him a "bust", I do think he will need to step up this year. If he doesn't, he won't be be likely to get a contract outside of his rookie one per your criteria.

 

It IS a matter of perspective. It's a matter of motivation too. Are you trying to do an objective evaluation? Are you simply bitching and moaning in an effort to build public support for getting someone fired because your team isn't as successful as you would like?

 

Or the third option; (and I'm not aiming it at anyone - just mentioning that it exists) are you a generally unhappy person that uses the internet as their personal tampon to catch the flow when on the metaphorical rag?

 

Or if none of those fit your motivation in your mind, how would you characterize it?

 

Are you really friggin serious with this BS? Damn, you caught me. I post only on this board, but my inside source tells me that Virginia McCaskey is one of the 50-100 people that come here at this point in the season, and she's senile looking for our ideas. I mean come on, I'm trying to get my fire the staff agenda out there. They aren't doing well enough at that themselves. They haven't been rocked in the papers, on the radio, in their own press conference, by coaches not wanting to come here and interview, or by them flat out turning down jobs. It's my own new idea I want to get out there, even tho it was stated no where in my post.

 

You got me so darn well on the third option. That metaphorical rag makes me see Okwo, Dusty D, Metcalf, Wolfe, and Harrison contributions to the team as not part of a third round success rate. Don't worry, in a week, it'll pass and I'll see them as the great players they are and knock my opinion up to 100%.

 

I don't think you can judge a person as a success or failure in anyone round actually. My disagreeing with you on who is successful in the third round actually isn't a slight against the staff in itself. You have to look at the body of work. The fact you got so defensive about it is a slight against whether you can be be objective or not.

 

I actually posted, because I didn't see your post as objective. I know you are an "Angelo Superfan". That's your thing and that's cool, but I think it blinds you to reality sometimes IMO. You often seem to be polishing a turd to fight off the hordes of brainwashed zombies coming to attack your super hero JA, to realize that it's a turd and their is no horde of zombies, and JA is just a man.

 

There are many flavors in life, and people are partial to each be it chocolate, strawberry, vanilla or what have you. Each person will say their kind is best, and to them they are right. Because they don't like your very berry strawberry, doesn't mean they are out to destroy it, depressed, or on the rag.

[Mongo3451]

Other than the first 3, I think all of these players have been playing on their rookie contract. The extension rule that you and other message boards aggreed to is irrelevant IMO.

 

 

 

The extra on Berrian was due to their being 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts listed in the post I replied to. Yes, he is a solid 3rd round pick. However, I wouldn't have counted him as a starter as he may have been considered in the previous post. He did start for the Bears at one point, but was not able to continue that role as he moved on. Ie. I don't consider Danielle Manning a starter at safety, even though he has started that position several times.

 

 

 

True, special teams contributions often gets lost in the shuffle. I had forgotten about that and was looking at him soley as a Running Back. That certainly wasn't the role he was drafted for, but yet he found a niche. I'm not sure how I would evaluate the pick without thinking about it a while, since I would probably expect more out of a 3rd rounder.

 

It's no puffery to push my point of view. It was just saying look at other peoples point of views as him as a player so far. Personally, I had compared him to Bennett and got knocked down a peg by everyone. They basically said he showed up fat, out of shape, and showed no potential. While it may be early to label him a "bust", I do think he will need to step up this year. If he doesn't, he won't be be likely to get a contract outside of his rookie one per your criteria.

 

 

 

Are you really friggin serious with this BS? Damn, you caught me. I post only on this board, but my inside source tells me that Virginia McCaskey is one of the 50-100 people that come here at this point in the season, and she's senile looking for our ideas. I mean come on, I'm trying to get my fire the staff agenda out there. They aren't doing well enough at that themselves. They haven't been rocked in the papers, on the radio, in their own press conference, by coaches not wanting to come here and interview, or by them flat out turning down jobs. It's my own new idea I want to get out there, even tho it was stated no where in my post.

 

You got me so darn well on the third option. That metaphorical rag makes me see Okwo, Dusty D, Metcalf, Wolfe, and Harrison contributions to the team as not part of a third round success rate. Don't worry, in a week, it'll pass and I'll see them as the great players they are and knock my opinion up to 100%.

 

I don't think you can judge a person as a success or failure in anyone round actually. My disagreeing with you on who is successful in the third round actually isn't a slight against the staff in itself. You have to look at the body of work. The fact you got so defensive about it is a slight against whether you can be be objective or not.

 

I actually posted, because I didn't see your post as objective. I know you are an "Angelo Superfan". That's your thing and that's cool, but I think it blinds you to reality sometimes IMO. You often seem to be polishing a turd to fight off the hordes of brainwashed zombies coming to attack your super hero JA, to realize that it's a turd and their is no horde of zombies, and JA is just a man.

 

There are many flavors in life, and people are partial to each be it chocolate, strawberry, vanilla or what have you. Each person will say their kind is best, and to them they are right. Because they don't like your very berry strawberry, doesn't mean they are out to destroy it, depressed, or on the rag.

That was awesome! You and LT provided some great material for me to destroy the guys at work...

[LT2_3]

Other than the first 3, I think all of these players have been playing on their rookie contract. The extension rule that you and other message boards aggreed to is irrelevant IMO.

 

You are correct about the first 3. That being said, what objective criteria would you propose using for evaluating players? When a fan evaluates his own team, it's usually the case that guys that didn't excel get tagged as "busts" or bad draft picks. Sometimes players don't work out for various reasons whether it be injury, change of scheme, poor coaching, or whatever. I think it's important to evaluate draft picks in that light.

 

For instance, how would you rate Benson as a draft pick now? I blame his failure with us on the coaching staff. If he did poorly here and then goes on to play well elsewhere, it sounds to me like the coaching staff doesn't know their head from a hole in the ground. But that doesn't make him a bad draft pick.

 

The extra on Berrian was due to their being 3 starters, 3 role players, and 2 busts listed in the post I replied to. Yes, he is a solid 3rd round pick. However, I wouldn't have counted him as a starter as he may have been considered in the previous post. He did start for the Bears at one point, but was not able to continue that role as he moved on. Ie. I don't consider Danielle Manning a starter at safety, even though he has started that position several times.

 

I really don't care what Berrian did once he left the team in terms of this discussion about draft picks. He was a starter here and left via free agency for a big money deal. I also think WRs are a unique position in that they are not only subject to scheme change, but QB change as well. In 2008 with the Vikes he had almost 1000 yards and 7 TDs. That's a starter in my book. Then Favre comes to town and he likes different guys. If Favre stays retired this time, he might become Sage's best friend and put up awesome numbers again. I also think he was dinged for a portion of the year as well.

 

I don't know what to say about D. Manning either. I think he's a guy the coaches screwed up. It's hard to say he was a bad draft pick because he's been on the field alot in at least 4 different positions outside of special teams. But he's never excelled in any one of them. I think it's because the coaching staff kept playing musical positions with him.

 

True, special teams contributions often gets lost in the shuffle. I had forgotten about that and was looking at him soley as a Running Back. That certainly wasn't the role he was drafted for, but yet he found a niche. I'm not sure how I would evaluate the pick without thinking about it a while, since I would probably expect more out of a 3rd rounder.

 

This is another one where I blame the coaching staff for a lot. Wolfe has been productive on draw plays and swing passes. Why did Turner insist on running him up the middle? Why not swing him out wide? Answer? Turner has the creativity of a piece of drywall.

 

It's no puffery to push my point of view. It was just saying look at other peoples point of views as him as a player so far. Personally, I had compared him to Bennett and got knocked down a peg by everyone. They basically said he showed up fat, out of shape, and showed no potential. While it may be early to label him a "bust", I do think he will need to step up this year. If he doesn't, he won't be be likely to get a contract outside of his rookie one per your criteria.

 

Well yeah, he did show up out of shape, but I disagree that he's shown no potential. He started 9 games last year and had 2 sacks. At the very least, he's a definite role player and therefore not a bad pick.

 

As for the criteria I mentioned regarding players signing a contract extension: That's not the only criteria. Players that haven't reached that opportunity yet aren't judged by it in some form of projection. For guys on their rookie deals, you have to look at if they start, are in a rotation, or if they are behind a great player that doesn't get injured. Jamar Williams is a perfect example. Is he a bust even though he rarely sees the field? No and it's because he plays behind Briggs. He can be called an unknown, but he can't be called a bust.

 

Are you really friggin serious with this BS? Damn, you caught me. I post only on this board, but my inside source tells me that Virginia McCaskey is one of the 50-100 people that come here at this point in the season, and she's senile looking for our ideas. I mean come on, I'm trying to get my fire the staff agenda out there. They aren't doing well enough at that themselves. They haven't been rocked in the papers, on the radio, in their own press conference, by coaches not wanting to come here and interview, or by them flat out turning down jobs. It's my own new idea I want to get out there, even tho it was stated no where in my post.

 

Sarcasm noted. However, ever since the billboard, some fans feel empowered that their bitching might make a bit of difference so they've turned it up a notch. The metaphorical rag was not aimed at you.

 

I don't think you can judge a person as a success or failure in anyone round actually. My disagreeing with you on who is successful in the third round actually isn't a slight against the staff in itself. You have to look at the body of work. The fact you got so defensive about it is a slight against whether you can be be objective or not.

 

I agree that you have to look at a body of work, but I also think you have to look at who's fingerprints are on which decisions. Angelo has done pretty well when the HC worked for him. When Jauron and Lovie both got their new contracts and more juice in decision making, things went downhill. In between those 2 situations and the coach worked for Angelo, we went to a SB. Since Lovie got his juice, we've gone downhill fast.

 

I actually posted, because I didn't see your post as objective. I know you are an "Angelo Superfan". That's your thing and that's cool, but I think it blinds you to reality sometimes IMO. You often seem to be polishing a turd to fight off the hordes of brainwashed zombies coming to attack your super hero JA, to realize that it's a turd and their is no horde of zombies, and JA is just a man.

 

Actually, I try to be as objective as possible. It's just that it's impossible when no one will agree to defining objective criteria. When all anyone else ever does is produce subjective (and often harsh) opinions, what difference does it make if I swing the pendulum the other way in an attempt to show how ridiculous it is?

 

The prevailing attitudes of the hoards of brainwashed zombies never allow for an understanding of extenuating circumstances. It's all absolutes. This guy sucked so it's Angelo's fault. Does it matter that Dan Bazuin was injured in training camp his rookie year and was never able to regain the burst that got him drafted in the 2nd round? No. That's irrelevant. Angelo picked him, he didn't work out, so therefore he was a bad pick. (I would also throw in here that I read it was Lovie that really wanted the guy anyway) Add up a few of these, exaggerate a few more, and that's what brainwashes the hoards of zombies. They're simply following the wave of emotion with their pitchforks and torches. Because there are so many of them doesn't justify their opinion, it just means they are sheeple.

 

When Angelo makes a bad pick I'm more than willing to admit it. Haynes was a bad pick. Roe Williams was a bad pick. Okwo is someone I don't know enough about. He was picked for depth when we thought Briggs was leaving but he hasn't turned up elsewhere either. I don't really rate guys drafted in the 5th or later as possibly being bad picks. The omissions that I haven't addressed yet? Grossman I call an injury issue since he had season ending injuries how many years in a row? He became afraid of getting injured and it effed up his mobility and confidence. Dusty had injury issues. Bradley had injury issues. I have no problem with Tank. I blame losing him on Virginia. Have I left anyone out?

 

There are many flavors in life, and people are partial to each be it chocolate, strawberry, vanilla or what have you. Each person will say their kind is best, and to them they are right. Because they don't like your very berry strawberry, doesn't mean they are out to destroy it, depressed, or on the rag.

 

The bolded part above is untrue. Intelligent people would say that their kind is best to them or their preference. They would not try and suggest an absolute valuation on something that is obviously subjective. To do otherwise is either "Puffery" in an attempt to persuade others toward their opinion, laziness in not saying what is meant, or plain old stupidity for not knowing the difference.

 

Puffery - noun - exaggerated condemnation especially for promotional purposes

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puffery

 

I'll admit that I sometimes engage in puffery, but it's almost always in reaction to opposing views using the same tactic.

 

My apologies to you 'TD' if my statements using Puffery aimed at someone else doing the same struck you the wrong way. I'm ALWAYS interested in having an objective discussion of just about anything.