Team Without A Power RB got to SB? - A RB Discussion

[Panamamike]

In my post (#70), I highlighted the part of your post to which I was referring. I do not believe that blocking ability was a big part of why Palmer was selected. Of course, all of a player's traits are evaluated, but you emphasized blocking ability and I do not think that was the team's emphasis.

Even in the press conference, I think you are attributing to much significance to the mentioning of blocking ability.

I was talking about blocking as a part of his skill set because of the ongoing discussion that preceded my post. That discussion revolved around personnel required to run the outside zone scheme. You're taking a post out of context and looking at it in isolation. You said to show you where Telesco or Staley ever mentioned blocking.
I did that. Coach Staley actually talks a lot about McKitty ability to play different tight end formations including inline blocking. You can keep going on and on with your preconceived set options I showed you exactly what the coach and GM said regarding aspects of each player's game that they valued given the offense they want to run. In both cases blocking was mentioned. you claimed they never mentioned it at all. You choose to view it as it was the 6th aspect mentioned. You also seem to view my post as that was the critical factor in the decision and that is just blatantly not true. Please refer to coach Staley's wrap up of his day two picks.

[dmac_bolt]

Palmer and Mr Kitty are the two most underrated overlooked prospects in the last 50 years. grabbing two future HOFers in the 3rd and 4th will cement TT’s legacy as the greatest Charger GM ever.

[Panamamike]

Palmer and Mr Kitty are the two most underrated overlooked prospects in the last 50 years. grabbing two future HOFers in the 3rd and 4th will cement TT’s legacy as the greatest Charger GM ever.

Hahahahahahahha.

[dmac_bolt]

Hahahahahahahha.

Right? Tommy is gonna be laughing all the way to Canton.

[Guest]

I was talking about blocking as a part of his skill set because of the ongoing discussion that preceded my post. That discussion revolved around personnel required to run the outside zone scheme. You're taking a post out of context and looking at it in isolation. You said to show you where Telesco or Staley ever mentioned blocking.
I did that. Coach Staley actually talks a lot about McKitty ability to play different tight end formations including inline blocking. You can keep going on and on with your preconceived set options I showed you exactly what the coach and GM said regarding aspects of each player's game that they valued given the offense they want to run. In both cases blocking was mentioned. you claimed they never mentioned it at all. You choose to view it as it was the 6th aspect mentioned. You also seem to view my post as that was the critical factor in the decision and that is just blatantly not true. Please refer to coach Staley's wrap up of his day two picks.

I was not talking about the poor thinking regarding the drafting of McKitty. That is a separate and even worse bungling of a draft pick by Telesco. That pick has been recognized by multiple pundits as one of the worst draft picks in the entire draft by any team. It takes a special kind of screwed up pick to pull that off.

The focus of my discussion was Palmer. Simply put, blocking was not a primary or even a secondary reason why he was selected. They were attempting to select a good WR and mentioned as a plus their belief that he is also a good blocker. The blocking aspect is a coincidental trait, not one that was specifically sought out at the time of the pick. In other words, they did not "have an eye toward" his blocking when they made the pick as you suggested.

You keep overselling the significance of blocking as it relates to the selection of Palmer. Again, a player can be noted as being good at something without that something being a significant part of the reason why the player was drafted. In Telesco's discussion, the blocking trait is buried and definitely not the emphasis of that discussion. (You can see that if you listen to more than the first 17 seconds.)

[equivocation]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit, discourage them with discourse.

I don't remember when I added that last part, I've been stuck between contract lawyers "negotiating" enough times that it's a blur.

[21&500]

I remember my under grad psychology professor saying something that stood out at the time and is relevant now.
something to the effect of, “optimism has shown to have a positive correlation with job performance in almost every known profession, except one, law (lawyers), actually the opposite is true, pessimism is positively correlated with competency as an attorney

haha
what say you chainy?

[powderblueboy]

Tell me, do you think the Raiders reached when they selected Leatherwood at #17 overall. If so, what is the basis for your opinion? Does it include that every or almost every pundit from here to hell and gone had him ranked much lower than where the Raiders selected him? Does it have anything to do with the player not appearing to be as good to you (and the vast majority of those commenting) versus where he was selected?

If you think that the exact same approach cannot be applied to Palmer and McKitty, you are just fooling yourself.

PFF was quoted as having had him at #79. Nobody else that I saw had him in the top 100 and many had him a good way below that. He was a round 4-5 guy all the way, which is great if you get him in round 5, but less great of you get him in round 3.

To put it another way, I suspect that if we had not taken him at #77, there is a good chance (odds on) that we could have drafted him not just at #97, but even at #118. There was more than a slim chance, but maybe not odds on, that we could have drafted him all the way down at #159.

I get that players like Pipkins, Palmer and McKitty were rated higher by the team. That is why they were drafted when they were. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not those picks were actually reaches. There is generally a consensus of a player's draft range. When a team jumps the gun on that range as we did with all of the third round players listed in this paragraph, the team has reached. That is what a reach is.

You seem to be suggesting that if a team follows its own board, they cannot be guilty of reaching. Your definition negates the existence of reaches because teams follow their own boards no matter how ridiculous they may be in some instances. And in doing so, teams can and do reach.

You do realize that the Charger organization, once they target a player, spends a good deal of time and resources trying to figure out when a player might go.
If Telesco suspected that your informal method of compiling draftnik's opinions was a sure fire way of precisely pinpointing draft slots,
he would be using them and you would still be complaining.

They drafted Palmer because they thought he was the bpa;
they 'reached' a bit for McKitty because they thought his skill set was crucial towards implementing the type of offense they want and didn't want to take the risk.

Personally, i like Rumph & Jaimes; so i'm not too disappointed they didn't end up grabbing Mckitty later.

[powderblueboy]

I was not talking about the poor thinking regarding the drafting of McKitty. That is a separate and even worse bungling of a draft pick by Telesco. That pick has been recognized by multiple pundits as one of the worst draft picks in the entire draft by any team. It takes a special kind of screwed up pick to pull that off.

The focus of my discussion was Palmer. Simply put, blocking was not a primary or even a secondary reason why he was selected. They were attempting to select a good WR and mentioned as a plus their belief that he is also a good blocker. The blocking aspect is a coincidental trait, not one that was specifically sought out at the time of the pick. In other words, they did not "have an eye toward" his blocking when they made the pick as you suggested.

You keep overselling the significance of blocking as it relates to the selection of Palmer. Again, a player can be noted as being good at something without that something being a significant part of the reason why the player was drafted. In Telesco's discussion, the blocking trait is buried and definitely not the emphasis of that discussion. (You can see that if you listen to more than the first 17 seconds.)

Where did you get this information? Staley / Telesco lightly value blocking skills in receivers: that is effectively what you are saying.

[Guest]

You do realize that the Charger organization, once they target a player, spends a good deal of time and resources trying to figure out when a player might go.
If Telesco suspected that your informal method of compiling draftnik's opinions was a sure fire way of precisely pinpointing draft slots,
he would be using them and you would still be complaining.

They drafted Palmer because they thought he was the bpa;
they 'reached' a bit for McKitty because they thought his skill set was crucial towards implementing the type of offense they want and didn't want to take the risk.

Personally, i like Rumph & Jaimes; so i'm not too disappointed they didn't end up grabbing Mckitty later.

They are doing a terrible job of trying to figure out when players might go. Absolutely stupid trade ups for Te'O (trading with an ILB needy team willing to trade out to take an ILB might have been a clue with 4 similarly rated ILBs all on the board 8 picks away) and Gordon (serious error in analysis to conclude there was any real risk of a team trading up to get Gordon) and not infrequently going after players too early that nobody is coming to get (Pipkins, Palmer, McKitty) are far too common.

Yes, NFL teams should at least be aware of the consensus of published opinion regarding a player's likely draft slot. Nobody is saying that it should be considered as gospel, just as a suggestion possible avenues for the gaining of extra value with its draft picks.

It is always better for a team to take a player that it values higher than the consensus range in the consensus range than it is to select a player way before the consensus range and for the team to hope that it had the only true genius so that the team could realize only fair, but not high value for the pick if, and only if, the pick exceeds the expectations of most.

With hundreds of players on the draft board, suppose that half a dozen are rated similarly at most points on the board. The team might have a player like Palmer, a consensus round 4-5 guy who plays the team's deepest position, as its highest rated player fractionally over other players who are consensus round 3 guys.

When drafting over many rounds, that is a "green light" situation. The team should consider taking the player that is likely to be gone and gone soon that carries nearly the same value so that the team can then use its next pick to get extra value on the player they have rated fractionally higher, but that public opinion suggests might fall a little lower in the draft. That is just simple basic draft strategy, especially where we are not talking about a PON.

How teams win the draft is by gaining value over all of the draft levels as a whole. Sometimes round combinations can be used to generate more value than by simply selecting the BPA at a given moment and teams should at least be aware of that when their rating appears to be our of whack with others reputable ratings.

The team reached for both Palmer and McKitty because that is what the consensus of opinions says happened. If they overperform, then the gets fair value for the pick. If they perform as most expect, then they are poor value choices. They are examples of poor draft strategy even if they yield fair value.

[Guest]

Where did you get this information? Staley / Telesco lightly value blocking skills in receivers: that is effectively what you are saying.

No, that is not what I am saying. In fact, it is nowhere close to what I am saying.

I responded to a poster that stated that Palmer was selected with an eye toward his blocking ability--suggesting that that was at least substantially, if not predominantly why the player was selected.

I disagree with such a view--period. I think Palmer is fine as a blocking WR, but not mainly, nor close to mainly, why he was drafted by us.

Is that clear enough?

[Panamamike]

They are doing a terrible job of trying to figure out when players might go. Absolutely stupid trade ups for Te'O (trading with an ILB needy team willing to trade out to take an ILB might have been a clue with 4 similarly rated ILBs all on the board 8 picks away) and Gordon (serious error in analysis to conclude there was any real risk of a team trading up to get Gordon) and not infrequently going after players too early that nobody is coming to get (Pipkins, Palmer, McKitty) are far too common.

Yes, NFL teams should at least be aware of the consensus of published opinion regarding a player's likely draft slot. Nobody is saying that it should be considered as gospel, just as a suggestion possible avenues for the gaining of extra value with its draft picks.

It is always better for a team to take a player that it values higher than the consensus range in the consensus range than it is to select a player way before the consensus range and for the team to hope that it had the only true genius so that the team could realize only fair, but not high value for the pick if, and only if, the pick exceeds the expectations of most.

With hundreds of players on the draft board, suppose that half a dozen are rated similarly at most points on the board. The team might have a player like Palmer, a consensus round 4-5 guy who plays the team's deepest position, as its highest rated player fractionally over other players who are consensus round 3 guys.

When drafting over many rounds, that is a "green light" situation. The team should consider taking the player that is likely to be gone and gone soon that carries nearly the same value so that the team can then use its next pick to get extra value on the player they have rated fractionally higher, but that public opinion suggests might fall a little lower in the draft. That is just simple basic draft strategy, especially where we are not talking about a PON.

How teams win the draft is by gaining value over all of the draft levels as a whole. Sometimes round combinations can be used to generate more value than by simply selecting the BPA at a given moment and teams should at least be aware of that when their rating appears to be our of whack with others reputable ratings.

The team reached for both Palmer and McKitty because that is what the consensus of opinions says happened. If they overperform, then the gets fair value for the pick. If they perform as most expect, then they are poor value choices. They are examples of poor draft strategy even if they yield fair value.

the consensus of online draftniks drives your entire narrative. I guess teams should just run their organization by fan polls? Same shit man.

BPA is board specific ...

Have you seen the videos of the jaguars unprotected board this year that showed how they ranked players? I guarantee you it was widely different from the teams that drafted the players. They definitely did not have a relatively high grade on Zach Wilson, and they had waddle grated the exact same on a value basis as Trevor Lawrence.

And NFL boards vary widely and are nowhere near even similar to online boards, or each other after about a round and a half to two rounds as to player clusters . Your rankings and value views are based on nothing. Do you really think that these draft boards are analyzing film and breaking down 300 players? They have a fun and entertaining part of leveraging fans to drive income. Their income has nothing to do with accuracy or validity. Comical... at best.