Jump to content

James Brown standing out at Minicamp


Bears4Ever_34

Recommended Posts

Well I can not knock a kid for smoking weed. Especially now that our President has done that and blow. Weed Will be legalized for medical before its all over anyhow. Besides .. its not like brown raped someone, ...Oh wait... His pocketbook sure got raped.

 

I'm sure Rashaan Salaam won't knock him for it either.

 

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/313698...-to-dec-28-2008

"He revealed to the website that he "has stopped smoking weed" and has some regrets about his situation with the Bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I measure everything is Brady was a 6th round pick. The system is flawed and every once in awhile a player makes it threw. It would be nice if that was Brown, but odds are against him

 

Did Brady start his rookie year? No. He only appeared in one game, and he didn't start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 rookies made the initial roster, total.

 

Way to avoid the question.

 

3 rookies made the roster. Surprise, surprise, they were all first rounders.

1.1 Cam Newton

1.2 Von Miller

1.4 AJ Green

 

No UDFA rookies made the all-star game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to avoid the question.

 

3 rookies made the roster. Surprise, surprise, they were all first rounders.

1.1 Cam Newton

1.2 Von Miller

1.4 AJ Green

 

No UDFA rookies made the all-star game.

If the Bears had drafted an OT in the 2nd round and they wound up starting, would you be equally mad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Bears had drafted an OT in the 2nd round and they wound up starting, would you be equally mad?

 

this...as stated before he was the 54th player ranked in this years draft so lets say hes not busted for weed and was drafted in the 2nd or 3rd by the bears...then do you care?? .. If he earns it, he earns it no matter where he came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason's point, while predictably pessimestic about our OL, isn't exactly controversial. It's conventional wisdom, so stop being obstinate. If you're patient, I'm sure he'll say something silly soon and you can go off on him then. ;)

F'n classic!!!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this...as stated before he was the 54th player ranked in this years draft so lets say hes not busted for weed and was drafted in the 2nd or 3rd by the bears...then do you care?? .. If he earns it, he earns it no matter where he came from.

He was ranked by one guy 54th, there are tons of people ranking players. The only ones that matter is how GMs rank players, and they get it wrong more that they get it right. I hope he turns into a good player, but odds of that being this year are very slim. Not because of where he was drafted, but because he needs to gain strength and experience and you dont get that in a couple of months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was ranked by one guy 54th, there are tons of people ranking players. The only ones that matter is how GMs rank players, and they get it wrong more that they get it right. I hope he turns into a good player, but odds of that being this year are very slim. Not because of where he was drafted, but because he needs to gain strength and experience and you dont get that in a couple of months.

 

 

And that one guy is Mel Kiper whos been doin it for years and has some pretty sweet hair, how can he be wrong??? A lot of scouts had him as a 3rd round talent as well, does that change things?? Im not advocating that he starts from the get go because of that I'm just saying if he earns it he earns it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that one guy is Mel Kiper whos been doin it for years and has some pretty sweet hair, how can he be wrong??? A lot of scouts had him as a 3rd round talent as well, does that change things?? Im not advocating that he starts from the get go because of that I'm just saying if he earns it he earns it.

 

 

3rd Rd talent is different from 3rd Rd draft pick in the sense that the people who have to cut the checks and commit a lot of time and effort to getting them ready to play must consider the intangibles on the player. Will he work hard? Drug use going to get him suspended? A player is worthless when he can't take the field because he's sitting on his 3rd Rd talent at home. I like the idea of giving the kid a chance at minimal risk thought while we took someone else with a higher probability of helping the team in the 3rd Rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
If the Bears had drafted an OT in the 2nd round and they wound up starting, would you be equally mad?

 

First, I'm not mad, nor was I mad. I just think it's funny that someone as smart as you could continually avoid the question being asked. It's like you're in politics.

 

To answer your question, a 2nd rounder starting on day 1 would make more sense than an UDFA starting on day 1. It's just common sense. It's so common it's not even worth talking about. I mean, there is a reason why the draft happens, and it's been statistically proven OVER AND OVER again that the higher the round the more likely to succeed. There are outliers for sure, but the overwhelming statistical data says that a player drafted higher has a better chance of succeeding. So, a 2nd rounder taking over a starting job would make more sense logically than an UDFA, and would be less of an indicator of the previous starter's ability, since, ya know, the guy who was drafted was considered good enough to get drafted in the 2nd round.

 

The point is not whether the UDFA or 2nd rounder earns the job; the point is how weak the person was he is replacing. If an UDFA can come in and start, that has a higher likelihood of meaning that the replaced starter was not very good.

 

Speaking of when people were drafted, enough with the "he was supposed to go in round X" nonsense. If he was supposed to go there, he would have. All 32 teams passed on him time and time again for whatever reason. They didn't like what they saw enough to draft him. Period. The fact that a hair-piece personality and multiple bloggers thought the dude was a 3rd or 4th rounder means absolutely nothing when all 32 teams decide he's not worthy of even getting a call in the 7th round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I'm not mad, nor was I mad. I just think it's funny that someone as smart as you could continually avoid the question being asked. It's like you're in politics.

 

To answer your question, a 2nd rounder starting on day 1 would make more sense than an UDFA starting on day 1. It's just common sense. It's so common it's not even worth talking about. I mean, there is a reason why the draft happens, and it's been statistically proven OVER AND OVER again that the higher the round the more likely to succeed. There are outliers for sure, but the overwhelming statistical data says that a player drafted higher has a better chance of succeeding. So, a 2nd rounder taking over a starting job would make more sense logically than an UDFA, and would be less of an indicator of the previous starter's ability, since, ya know, the guy who was drafted was considered good enough to get drafted in the 2nd round.

 

I have to continue and disagree with the "common" in the common sense as you portray it here. As I've pointed out before, previously before this year the team's last two first rounders were in fact Offensive Tackles. And yet last year (and the year before) a 7th rounder (Webb) played more in THAT position did both of those 1st rounders combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to continue and disagree with the "common" in the common sense as you portray it here. As I've pointed out before, previously before this year the team's last two first rounders were in fact Offensive Tackles. And yet last year (and the year before) a 7th rounder (Webb) played more in THAT position did both of those 1st rounders combined.

 

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. The statistics for this sort of thing, if you were so inclined to actually look for them or crunch the numbers yourself, overwhelmingly say that the higher you're drafted, the better chance you have of not only making the team, but playing well and becoming and all-star. It's not up for debate. Using the Webb vs Williams+Carimi at OT is such a disingenuous argument that I won't even address it except to say it's beyond apples and oranges; it's apples and Bob Dole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. The statistics for this sort of thing, if you were so inclined to actually look for them or crunch the numbers yourself, overwhelmingly say that the higher you're drafted, the better chance you have of not only making the team, but playing well and becoming and all-star. It's not up for debate. Using the Webb vs Williams+Carimi at OT is such a disingenuous argument that I won't even address it except to say it's beyond apples and oranges; it's apples and Bob Dole.

But you don't decide roster spots or starting positions based on probabilities. You're completely right, 1st and 2nd round picks give you the best chance of being starters. But that doesn't mean the back end/UDFA's can't be just as good...there's just a lower probability and often a little more work to find/develop those guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you don't decide roster spots or starting positions based on probabilities. You're completely right, 1st and 2nd round picks give you the best chance of being starters. But that doesn't mean the back end/UDFA's can't be just as good...there's just a lower probability and often a little more work to find/develop those guys.

 

That's pretty much what Jason said. Seems like a little nit picking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the debate on this roster is between Webb and Brown its a wash because Webb was drafted by the Bears because they thought someone else would draft him before FA. The whole key is how Williams is viewed. If he is viewed as a OT then Brown and Webb should be relegated to backups( considering Williams plays like a 1st Rd talent at the position.)One of the best OTs in recent memory on the Bears was an undrafted free agen DT James "Big Cat" Williams and no he didn't start as a rookie at OT but he did get significant playing time at DT when he was a rookie and once he was switched to the offensive side of the ball he almost immediately got the starting spot.

 

During Walter Payton's playing days the Bears drafted 4 first round OTs. Dennis Lick, Ted Albrecht, Keith Van Horne and Jimbo Covert. The first two were early on and were surronded by the likes of Jeff Sevy,Dan Peiffer and Noah Jackson. Two World Football League refugees and Jackson was from the Canadian Football League. The last two were the bookends on the 85 SB team and were surrounded by Tom Thayer a draft pick that played in the USFL, Jay Hilgenberg a UDFA and Mark Bortz a DT converted to OG.All of this points towards the coaching in each situation and now whatever the case may be all signs point to Tice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. The statistics for this sort of thing, if you were so inclined to actually look for them or crunch the numbers yourself, overwhelmingly say that the higher you're drafted, the better chance you have of not only making the team, but playing well and becoming and all-star. It's not up for debate. Using the Webb vs Williams+Carimi at OT is such a disingenuous argument that I won't even address it except to say it's beyond apples and oranges; it's apples and Bob Dole.

 

I know, when I discuss something with you I usually am wrong. But I've learned to live with it. But what we are discussing now is simple semantics. As I've said before statistics can be used any wAy you or I see fit. For example, you say the likelihood of first round draft picks at the (OT/OL) position succeeding is higher, where I say the likelihood of the two first round OT picks for the Bears, so far have not (in their respective positions). I will go further and agree that its not up for debate, these are facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, when I discuss something with you I usually am wrong. But I've learned to live with it. But what we are discussing now is simple semantics. As I've said before statistics can be used any wAy you or I see fit. For example, you say the likelihood of first round draft picks at the (OT/OL) position succeeding is higher, where I say the likelihood of the two first round OT picks for the Bears, so far have not (in their respective positions). I will go further and agree that its not up for debate, these are facts.

 

When you pick out two bits of data that flow contradictory to the sea of data proving the opposite, yes, you will be wrong.

 

But if compromise is what you're after, then I concede that the two Bears' OTs have not aligned with the aforementioned sea of data if you are admitting above - I think you are - that the two Bears' OTs just happen to be the outliers, the anomalies from the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you pick out two bits of data that flow contradictory to the sea of data proving the opposite, yes, you will be wrong.

 

But if compromise is what you're after, then I concede that the two Bears' OTs have not aligned with the aforementioned sea of data if you are admitting above - I think you are - that the two Bears' OTs just happen to be the outliers, the anomalies from the norm.

 

No I am not trying to compromise, concede, agree or acquiesce. I'm just sayin'.

 

Cheers bro! :drink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...