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

[Panamamike]

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?

You are completely full of shit.

You ignore the"in part"(which in no rational mind means the majority reason) aspect of where I'm referring to two players drafted, not just one, and a skill set that the chargers value for the offense they want to run which was part of a multi-post and response. You've taken those words out of context and are trying to frame it as i said that blocking skills of Palmer is the main reason why he's drafted. I never said that and only someone that can't read or comprehend beyond one sentence in isolation would deduce that. you're again full of s***. Then you asked when did they ever talk about this skill. i showed you and you twist it and spin it another way. If you read all the posts I have put about Palmer in every thread it's about his ALL around game (which in this drive class was not prevalent as many wide receivers were positioned specific )and not a focus on his blocking. You twist people's words and try to tell them what they said and what they meant. You twist it to suit your own agenda and you're completely full of shit.

I will gladly highlight every post I put about Palmer as a player and you can see what I have said because it's absolutely not what you are claiming that I said. Nobody with a rational mind or an iota of comprehension would ever come to that conclusion. I will gladly list all my posts in one thread with a poll and will put a bet on what people think that I said about his value to the chargers, how they view him, and what he brings to the table. since you value group think so much, would you care to put your money where your mouth is?

[Guest]

You are completely full of shit.

You ignore the"in part"(which in no rational mind means the majority reason) aspect of where I'm referring to two players drafted, not just one, and a skill set that the chargers value for the offense they want to run which was part of a multi-post and response. You've taken those words out of context and are trying to frame it as i said that blocking skills of Palmer is the main reason why he's drafted. I never said that and only someone that can't read or comprehend beyond one sentence in isolation would deduce that. you're again full of s***. Then you asked when did they ever talk about this skill. i showed you and you twist it and spin it another way. If you read all the posts I have put about Palmer in every thread it's about his ALL around game (which in this drive class was not prevalent as many wide receivers were positioned specific )and not a focus on his blocking. You twist people's words and try to tell them what they said and what they meant. You twist it to suit your own agenda and you're completely full of shit.

I have indicated more than once that my comments are limited to the part that I highlighted many posts ago. If you deviated from that statement in other posts, that is your inconsistency.

I have carefully explained the part that I disagreed with and you have attempted to say that you really meant something else. You even tried to show me in videos where blocking was emphasized only it wasn't when looking at the whole video. Blocking was mentioned, but clearly not emphasized.

What you said in the post that I highlighted that caught my attention was that he was drafted "with an eye toward" his blocking skills, suggesting that it took on extra significance, whether that means mainly or substantially. My point is simply that in so indicating you have overstated the importance of his blocking relative to the other factors.

[21&500]

You are completely full of shit.

You ignore the"in part"(which in no rational mind means the majority reason) aspect of where I'm referring to two players drafted, not just one, and a skill set that the chargers value for the offense they want to run which was part of a multi-post and response. You've taken those words out of context and are trying to frame it as i said that blocking skills of Palmer is the main reason why he's drafted. I never said that and only someone that can't read or comprehend beyond one sentence in isolation would deduce that. you're again full of s***. Then you asked when did they ever talk about this skill. i showed you and you twist it and spin it another way. If you read all the posts I have put about Palmer in every thread it's about his ALL around game (which in this drive class was not prevalent as many wide receivers were positioned specific )and not a focus on his blocking. You twist people's words and try to tell them what they said and what they meant. You twist it to suit your mmnmmmmmnd you're completely full of shit.

I will gladly highlight every post I put about Palmer as a player and you can see what I have said because it's absolutely not whate you are claiming that I said. Nobody with a rational mind or an iota of comprehension would ever come to that conclusion. I will gladly list all my posts in one thread with a pole and will put a bet on what people think that I said since you value group think so much. Would you care to put your money where your mouth is?

For all the bolded is why I’m calling Chainy when I’m in legal trouble hahaha

[Panamamike]

For all the bolded is why I’m calling Chainy when I’m in legal trouble hahaha

Me too! LOL

[Panamamike]

I have indicated more than once that my comments are limited to the part that I highlighted many posts ago. If you deviated from that statement in other posts, that is your inconsistency.

I have carefully explained the part that I disagreed with and you have attempted to say that you really meant something else. You even tried to show me in videos where blocking was emphasized only it wasn't when looking at the whole video. Blocking was mentioned, but clearly not emphasized.

What you said in the post that I highlighted that caught my attention was that he was drafted "with an eye toward" his blocking skills, suggesting that it took on extra significance, whether that means mainly or substantially. My point is simply that in so indicating you have overstated the importance of his blocking relative to the other factors.

U are full of shit. First sentence was prefaced by "in part". Where in that world does that mean the major focus? Get out of the courtroom where you lie and twist.

[Panamamike]

I have indicated more than once that my comments are limited to the part that I highlighted many posts ago. If you deviated from that statement in other posts, that is your inconsistency.

I have carefully explained the part that I disagreed with and you have attempted to say that you really meant something else. You even tried to show me in videos where blocking was emphasized only it wasn't when looking at the whole video. Blocking was mentioned, but clearly not emphasized.

What you said in the post that I highlighted that caught my attention was that he was drafted "with an eye toward" his blocking skills, suggesting that it took on extra significance, whether that means mainly or substantially. My point is simply that in so indicating you have overstated the importance of his blocking relative to the other factors.

Move your quotation marks to include the words IN PART, which directly precede your agenda driven decision of where to put said "". stop lying to yourself about what was said and projecting BS.

[Panamamike]

I have indicated more than once that my comments are limited to the part that I highlighted many posts ago. If you deviated from that statement in other posts, that is your inconsistency.

I have carefully explained the part that I disagreed with and you have attempted to say that you really meant something else. You even tried to show me in videos where blocking was emphasized only it wasn't when looking at the whole video. Blocking was mentioned, but clearly not emphasized.

What you said in the post that I highlighted that caught my attention was that he was drafted "with an eye toward" his blocking skills, suggesting that it took on extra significance, whether that means mainly or substantially. My point is simply that in so indicating you have overstated the importance of his blocking relative to the other factors.

I have 0 inconsistencies. You have never acknowledged the fact that the words "in part"precede what you quote and focus on. I have never once indicated, said ,or implied that his blocking was the major,.or A major focus of his skill set other than in your agenda driven mind. In fact his ability to excel against top corner competition in his conference with absolutely s***** quarterback play was the major reason.

[Panamamike]

Chain... Would you like me to put a synopsis of the posts and go by group vote as you value that so much in the draft, and put your money where your mouth is or not?

[Guest]

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.

You are wrong again.

I said teams should be aware of any consensus and possibly take advantage of it. They should understand how their view may deviate from that of others performing the same evaluation. It is basic draft strategy that if you are selecting between two players that you have similarly rated and there is a good chance that one and not the other will still be on the board when you draft again, you choose the player first that will not still be on the board. That way, you have a decent chance of landing both players.

I have shown very clear cases in which Telesco appears not to have understood consensus player values and reached. Amazingly enough, all could be identified at the time they were selected and they all did not play up to where they were drafted. So while a team can hit on an apparent reach and at least break even on the draft capital expended, in the vast majority of cases, the team is demonstrated to have exercised poor judgment. The consensus is more likely to be correct than the outlier opinion. There is no infallibility anywhere, but the odds favor the consensus.

I have said that consensus defines reaches. Otherwise, no team could ever reach unless it reached on its own board, which rarely happens. That interpretation would essentially negate the existence of reaches and make the concept useless, so I reject that definition of a reach out of hand.

A player can be a reach and still work out, so that is not what is being discussed, though consistently reaching for players is not the best strategy.

I think it is fair to conclude that the Raiders reached for Leatherwood at #17 overall because the consensus of opinion says that they did. By the same token, I think it is fair to conclude that we reached for Palmer and McKitty because the consensus of opinion says we did. No difference. No weak homerism.

Given the error rate of NFL teams with regard to draft picks, I think the degree of superiority that you confer upon NFL draft rooms is laughable. We are talking about third round picks by the Chargers in the Tom Telesco era, picks after Allen that have been impressively bad almost without exception. We could have had blindfolded chimpanzee throw darts at consensus round 3 draft candidates on a dart board in the last 8 drafts and done better than Telesco did, so I definitely would not push the "actual draft rooms are superior" angle too much.

[Panamamike]

You are wrong again.

I said teams should be aware of any consensus and possibly take advantage of it. They should understand how their view may deviate from that of others performing the same evaluation. It is basic draft strategy that if you are selecting between two players that you have similarly rated and there is a good chance that one and not the other will still be on the board when you draft again, you choose the player first that will not still be on the board. That way, you have a decent chance of landing both players.

I have shown very clear cases in which Telesco appears not to have understood consensus player values and reached. Amazingly enough, all could be identified at the time they were selected and they all did not play up to where they were drafted. So while a team can hit on an apparent reach and at least break even on the draft capital expended, in the vast majority of cases, the team is demonstrated to have exercised poor judgment. The consensus is more likely to be correct than the outlier opinion. There is no infallibility anywhere, but the odds favor the consensus.

I have said that consensus defines reaches. Otherwise, no team could ever reach unless it reached on its own board, which rarely happens. That interpretation would essentially negate the existence of reaches and make the concept useless, so I reject that definition of a reach out of hand.

A player can be a reach and still work out, so that is not what is being discussed, though consistently reaching for players is not the best strategy.

I think it is fair to conclude that the Raiders reached for Leatherwood at #17 overall because the consensus of opinion says that they did. By the same token, I think it is fair to conclude that we reached for Palmer and McKitty because the consensus of opinion says we did. No difference. No weak homerism.

Given the error rate of NFL teams with regard to draft picks, I think the degree of superiority that you confer upon NFL draft rooms is laughable. We are talking about third round picks by the Chargers in the Tom Telesco era, picks after Allen that have been impressively bad almost without exception. We could have had blindfolded chimpanzee throw darts at consensus round 3 draft candidates on a dart board in the last 8 drafts and done better than Telesco did, so I definitely would not push the "actual draft rooms are superior" angle too much.

None of those consensus take into effect the systems in which the teams run. A very good skill set player can be drafted by a team which he doesn't fit their system and he will not perform well, but would perform better on another team which runs a system that better fits their skill set. It's not a one size fits all. The draftniks consensus also do not take into account medical evals which we have no access to nor individual interviews.


Let's get back to what I asked. Do you want to put your money where your mouth is as asked previously? You value group think so much let's have the group decide who's right who's wrong as to what was actually said.

[Panamamike]

You are wrong again.

I said teams should be aware of any consensus and possibly take advantage of it. They should understand how their view may deviate from that of others performing the same evaluation. It is basic draft strategy that if you are selecting between two players that you have similarly rated and there is a good chance that one and not the other will still be on the board when you draft again, you choose the player first that will not still be on the board. That way, you have a decent chance of landing both players.

I have shown very clear cases in which Telesco appears not to have understood consensus player values and reached. Amazingly enough, all could be identified at the time they were selected and they all did not play up to where they were drafted. So while a team can hit on an apparent reach and at least break even on the draft capital expended, in the vast majority of cases, the team is demonstrated to have exercised poor judgment. The consensus is more likely to be correct than the outlier opinion. There is no infallibility anywhere, but the odds favor the consensus.

I have said that consensus defines reaches. Otherwise, no team could ever reach unless it reached on its own board, which rarely happens. That interpretation would essentially negate the existence of reaches and make the concept useless, so I reject that definition of a reach out of hand.

A player can be a reach and still work out, so that is not what is being discussed, though consistently reaching for players is not the best strategy.

I think it is fair to conclude that the Raiders reached for Leatherwood at #17 overall because the consensus of opinion says that they did. By the same token, I think it is fair to conclude that we reached for Palmer and McKitty because the consensus of opinion says we did. No difference. No weak homerism.

Given the error rate of NFL teams with regard to draft picks, I think the degree of superiority that you confer upon NFL draft rooms is laughable. We are talking about third round picks by the Chargers in the Tom Telesco era, picks after Allen that have been impressively bad almost without exception. We could have had blindfolded chimpanzee throw darts at consensus round 3 draft candidates on a dart board in the last 8 drafts and done better than Telesco did, so I definitely would not push the "actual draft rooms are superior" angle too much.

There's only so many jobs in a roster and the competition is fierce. have u looked at the math of his hits in his tenure versus NFL average GMs? Some players move on to second contracts elsewhere but the fact that matter is his players have stayed in the league with us and elsewhere when compared to the industry average. Again I will gladly put my money where my mouth is. Will you?


I know u won't. Because you're full of s*** and agenda driven. You think that online consensus determines player value and they have no f****** clue. You now have two bets I will gladly post evidence to boards of direct conversations for group vote for the first bet and the second one of easy statistics. Do want to bet or just run your mouth?

[Guest]

U are full of shit. First sentence was prefaced by "in part". Where in that world does that mean the major focus? Get out of the courtroom where you lie and twist.

I think your use of the words "in part" does not negate your overemphasis on the team's consideration of Palmer as a blocker when they drafted him. Again, it was not the substantial consideration that you made it out to be and even reinforced by referring me to a video that was not supportive of your position. They were not drafting him because he was a good blocker. Had Jaylen Waddle been on the board, they would have taken him even though he is certainly a lesser blocker than Palmer and that is because blocking was not that significant of a consideration in their selection process at that point, which has been my point all along.

I do not disagree as to your take regarding McKitty being selected for his perceived blocking ability.

BTW, your take on attorneys in the courtroom is misguided. We cannot suborn perjury and as officers of the court, we are supposed to be truthful in court.