| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CWood21
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 30858
Location: 'Merica
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| msmre wrote: | I hope two things:
1.) That you don't believe that "any given Sunday" is the same as buying more lottery tickets.
2.) That you don't honestly believe that someone believing that 10 is one more than 9 and not that ten is equivalent to first tier is "putting blinders on".
Maybe you should stop now. |
I'm guessing you're just skimming at this point now. You are the one who tried to make a correlation to the draft and football games on Sunday, not me. I just answered what you asked me. You can increase your odds and you can decrease your odds whether it be through the draft or a game on Sunday. It doesn't make a difference. I honestly have no idea of what you're babbling about in that second point.
_________________
^sandwhich on the sig^
| Superman(DH23) wrote: | | Or you just think that b/c the Pack was 10-0 made them hotter? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
msmre
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 20329
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CWood21 wrote: | | msmre wrote: | I hope two things:
1.) That you don't believe that "any given Sunday" is the same as buying more lottery tickets.
2.) That you don't honestly believe that someone believing that 10 is one more than 9 and not that ten is equivalent to first tier is "putting blinders on".
Maybe you should stop now. |
I'm guessing you're just skimming at this point now. You are the one who tried to make a correlation to the draft and football games on Sunday, not me. I just answered what you asked me. You can increase your odds and you can decrease your odds whether it be through the draft or a game on Sunday. It doesn't make a difference. I honestly have no idea of what you're babbling about in that second point. |
Well, I did read what you wrote, but I don't have context for that many platitudes in one paragraph, so i just gave up on responding. I didn't think that KC would beat Green Bay, but they did and it only took one time to do it. They didn't need to buy more than one lottery ticket. You need to pick the right numbers. It wasn't random. They outplayed them. It wasn't a game of coin flip. You insist that more picks is better than fewer. I suggest that better picks are better than worse picks regardless of # of picks. For instance, in the 2007 draft, the Packers had 11 choices.
1 16 Justin Harrell DT Tennessee
2 63 Brandon Jackson RB Nebraska
3 78 James Jones WR San Jose State
3 89 Aaron Rouse SAF Virginia Tech
4 119 Allen Barbre G Missouri Southern State
5 157 David Clowney WR Virginia Tech
6 191 Korey Hall FB Boise State
6 192 Desmond Bishop LB California
6 193 Mason Crosby K Colorado
7 228 DeShawn Wynn RB Florida
7 243 Clark Harris TE Rutgers
and in 2006, they had 12
1 5 A.J. Hawk OLB Ohio State
2 47 Daryn Colledge G Boise State
2 52 Greg Jennings WR Western Michigan
3 67 Abdul Hodge LB Iowa
3 75 Jason Spitz G Louisville
4 104 Cory Rodgers WR Texas Christian
4 115 Will Blackmon CB Boston College
5 148 Ingle Martin QB Furman
5 165 Tony Moll G Nevada-Reno
6 183 Johnny Jolly DT Texas A&M
6 185 Tyrone Culver DB Fresno State
7 253 Dave Tollefson DE Northwest Missouri State
Did they do better than they did in 2009 when then had 8?
1 9 B.J. Raji NT Boston College
1 26 Clay Matthews LB USC
4 109 T.J. Lang T Eastern Michigan
5 145 Quinn Johnson RB Louisiana State
5 162 Jamon Meredith T South Carolina
6 182 Jarius Wynn DE Georgia
6 187 Brandon Underwood DB Cincinnati
7 218 Brad Jones LB Colorado
or 2008 when they had 9?
2 36 Jordy Nelson WR Kansas State
2 56 Brian Brohm QB Louisville
2 60 Pat Lee CB Auburn
3 91 Jermichael Finley TE Texas
4 102 Jeremy Thompson DE Wake Forest
4 135 Josh Sitton G Central Florida
5 150 Breno Giacomini T Louisville
7 209 Matt Flynn QB Louisiana State
7 217 Brett Swain WR
No.
But as I said, # of picks doesn't really matter because it is what you do with them that counts. For instance, 2004 the Packers had 6 picks.
1 25 Ahmad Carroll CB Arkansas
3 70 Joey Thomas CB Montana State
3 72 Donnell Washington DT Clemson
3 87 B.J. Sander P Ohio State
6 179 Corey Williams DT Arkansas State
7 251 Scott Wells C Tennessee
and in 2005 they had 11.
1 24 Aaron Rodgers QB California
2 51 Nick Collins FS Bethune-Cookman
2 58 Terrence Murphy WR Texas A&M
4 115 Marviel Underwood DB San Diego State
4 125 Brady Poppinga LB Brigham Young
5 143 Junius Coston C North Carolina A&T
5 167 Mike Hawkins DB Oklahoma
6 180 Mike Montgomery DT Texas A&M
6 195 Craig Bragg WR UCLA
7 245 Kurt Campbell CB Albany State (NY)
7 246 Will Whitticker G Michigan State
Clearly having fewer picks doesn't work either.
Boom. Any given Sunday.
As for the 2nd point, you said that you don't regard your tiers and a specific number and that words don't mean anything. Then you said that despite you not believing that words have meaning, that I had blinders on. In fact, I am the one that sees value in words.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ugLymayNe
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 10794
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CWood21 wrote: | | I honestly have no idea of what you're babbling about in that second point. |
your point: This draft does not have 10 prospects that should be top 10 picks.
His point: There are 10 players that will be picked in the first 10 picks. You can't just compare these draftees to some arbitrary draft class. Your reasoning is flawed and you(along with Mayock) use that term because you feel intelligent when you use it. Truth is...every class has it's flaws. Every single draft has people saying the exact same thing you've been saying.
_________________
@PJHotel_
| jfinley88 wrote: | | All I drink is capri suns, sunny delight, and womenly alcoholic drinks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bizzle
Joined: 04 Jan 2010
Posts: 201
Location: Eau Cleazy
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I got an idea... I'll start a post, a good one.
If someone slips up and says something I don't like, no matter how trivial... I'll spend the next 10+ posts trying to make the guy look dumb and make myself feel good.
Thanks for wasting my time, is this really what the forum is for?.. it was a good post, turned to gah-bage! Lets not waste our time nick picking.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msmre
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 20329
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Bizzle wrote: | I got an idea... I'll start a post, a good one.
If someone slips up and says something I don't like, no matter how trivial... I'll spend the next 10+ posts trying to make the guy look dumb and make myself feel good.
Thanks for wasting my time, is this really what the forum is for?.. it was a good post, turned to gah-bage! Lets not waste our time nick picking. |
Not that I am "nick picking", but nobody forced you to read.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bizzle
Joined: 04 Jan 2010
Posts: 201
Location: Eau Cleazy
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It doesn't have to go this way. I like the forum a lot, and it's still the best place I go to for Packer info. We dont have to be best friends, or even agree on things, but theres nothing worse then posts that get this far off topic. Like I said earlier it was a nice post, I put in my two cents. I was hoping to see others do the same and where or how they may pool players in the draft.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 26524
Location: Madison
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
i think a discussion on how people tier players is appropriate in a thread about the draft by tiers.
I also think it's really silly to name 5 'top 10' players. I've always felt this way and now feel vindicated that logic prevails amongst many  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilbert Burger
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 3145
Location: The 414
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Calmer than you, dude. I"m finishing my coffee.
| msmre wrote: | | I dabble in physical pacifism though. |
I dabbled in pacifism once. Not in Nam', of course.
_________________
"Fundamentals are a crutch for the talentless" - Kenny Powers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWood21
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 30858
Location: 'Merica
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ugLymayNe wrote: | your point: This draft does not have 10 prospects that should be top 10 picks.
His point: There are 10 players that will be picked in the first 10 picks. You can't just compare these draftees to some arbitrary draft class. Your reasoning is flawed and you(along with Mayock) use that term because you feel intelligent when you use it. Truth is...every class has it's flaws. Every single draft has people saying the exact same thing you've been saying. |
Thank you. And if that is really what he trying to communicate to me, this further proves my point that msmre isn't actually reading what I'm posting. Instead skimming over what I posted, pointing out the parts that he disagrees with because I clearly said this:
| CWood21 wrote: | | Each tier has it's value come up when the tier before it has dried up. |
Now maybe I wasn't clear enough, but this goes back to the whole point of msmre making way too big a deal of the labels.
_________________
^sandwhich on the sig^
| Superman(DH23) wrote: | | Or you just think that b/c the Pack was 10-0 made them hotter? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blueswedeshoes
Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 869
Location: WisKAHNsin
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have thoroughly enjoyed this "tiers" thread and the different POV it contains. I have saved the different tiers posters have presented for the pure entertainment of post-draft comparison. One comes to a site like this for both information AND entertainment.
Skirting the rules for a moment, I would have to say that a certain thread starter impresses me with his knowledge and entertains me with his prickly responses that make him seem like an (inappropriate/removed). At times the snarkiness becomes tedious, but, as I gradually learn the personality of this particular heavy-lifter, I find the football contributions quite compensatory to the aggrieved combativeness. It gives topography to the site.
BTW, ugLymayNe's distillation of the "Top Ten" dust-up was funny and spot-on. One can almost hear a GM lamenting that, with pick #6 of the draft, all of the top ten talent is gone.
_________________
| MNPackfan32 wrote: | | This team has enough Old Spice and State Farm leaders and not enough curb stomp you in a bar fight guys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skibrett15
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1042
Location: nibelheim
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
eh, I do agree with msmre that the notion of top 10 pick meaning anything other than first 10 picks is pretty silly.
Also palmy you mentioned letting "those guys" be. Who are those guys, mayock? Mayock types? Jargon-based "talent" advisors who are trying to pigeon-hole players into specific traits? Posters on FF? Not asking you to "name names" or anything, just curious.
msmre you tagged gilmore, fletcher cox and brockers as 3 the pack would move up for. Totally agree on these 3 based on what I've learned about them and positional fit. Gilmore seems the most "gettable" as cox and brockers are planet theory candidates and should be top 11. 
I'd add that janoris jenkins will almost certainly be there at the packers slot, based on character flags. Also think Lamar Miller is a clear tier 5 guy for me.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 12601
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Three types of posters here. Those that know football, those that want to know football, and those that think or want people to think they know football. The first two are great. That last group can drive ya crazy. I don't get hung up there though. Just read and move on. Why I do not reply to a few members here. Just don't like the BS. Come here for smart, clean football talk. Ya know what I mean.
Great group of guys here though IMO.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobSacamano
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 12738
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So msmre, you don't like to assign variable definitions for words? That's Ironic.
_________________
| KingTarvaris7 wrote: | | last year's vikings were far better than the packers team that just won |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PossibleCabbage
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 2454
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BobSacamano wrote: | | So msmre, you don't like to assign variable definitions for words? That's Ironic. |
I think just as a matter of making sure that language is comprehensible, that one should not assign meanings to words that are contrary to the standard meaning, applicable in exactly the same context as the standard meaning is applied to.
I mean, it's fine that "neat" can mean tidy ("the books were stacked in neat piles"), impressive/efficient ("that's a neat trick"), or undiluted ("he drank neat Scotch"). The reason that's fine is that which meaning you're using is always immediately apparent from context. People don't tend to be impressed by the efficiency of whisky, or comment on the tidiness of one's techniques.
The thing is that it's not really okay for "Top Ten tier" to mean "The ten best" or "the best, regardless of how many they number" because it's not really clear from context what you're talking about, and it leads to avoidable disagreements ("So and so is not a top ten player" ->"Oh? Name ten players better than so-and-so"->"that's not what I mean by top ten"->"so there's not ten players in your top ten? That's stupid"-> [this thread]).
It's not like we really lack for other terms to describe the top tier (for example "top tier", "first tier", "elite tier") so you can just pick another term instead of trying to twist the meaning of a phrase away from its obvious meaning.
Last edited by PossibleCabbage on Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blueswedeshoes
Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 869
Location: WisKAHNsin
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Good post, Cabbage.
People are on fire in here. That was like the fifteenth Top Ten post we've had today.
_________________
| MNPackfan32 wrote: | | This team has enough Old Spice and State Farm leaders and not enough curb stomp you in a bar fight guys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
