Jump to content

July Madness: All Time Draft Discussion Thread


Lith

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Wow.  A couple of athletically limited system players going 1-2. 

I suppose.  But I think Jerry Rice was a tremendous athlete, just not the traditional size/speed combo we expect out of # 1 receivers.  He would have succeeded in any system. 

Neither he nor Montana would have been my pick at 1 or 2, but they're still solid picks.  I'd love to be picking 3 or 4 though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I suppose.  But I think Jerry Rice was a tremendous athlete, just not the traditional size/speed combo we expect out of # 1 receivers.  He would have succeeded in any system. 

Neither he nor Montana would have been my pick at 1 or 2, but they're still solid picks.  I'd love to be picking 3 or 4 though. 

Agreed. I wouldn't pick either with my first two, but honestly...how do you argue against them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patriot Killa said:

Think so? I was sorta expecting Jerry Rice to go #1

 

I probably wouldn’t have went Rice just because of how many amazing WR’s there is out there but good pick nonetheless. 

Montana was a solid pick too.

The appeal of Rice is how much he stands above everyone else at his position.  Positional value of a WR isn't as high as QB or some others but nobody creates a WR list without Rice at #1 while there are any number of QBs you could argue for (although Montana is certainly a strong choice for #1).  At #12 I'd have loved either one but I also would have had pause at 1 or 2 given some other options to consider.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nycdan said:

The appeal of Rice is how much he stands above everyone else at his position.  Positional value of a WR isn't as high as QB or some others but nobody creates a WR list without Rice at #1 while there are any number of QBs you could argue for (although Montana is certainly a strong choice for #1).  At #12 I'd have loved either one but I also would have had pause at 1 or 2 given some other options to consider.  

I can agree with that. I suppose it also just depends on what kind of offense the poster is wanting to build. WCO or any offense that is pass dominate? Then ya’ definitely did good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, New York Mick said:

IMO there’s 3 QBs that standout from the others And more elite WRs, RBs, D so I went with a QB. But honestly any of the top 10 players of all time aren’t a bad pick. 

True. I think what will separate how good our rosters are will be later in the draft rather than who we take top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Patriot Killa said:

True. I think what will separate how good our rosters are will be later in the draft rather than who we take top 10.

Agreed. One thing I'm not sure about... are we playing by today's rules? I assume yes. Some of those old dudes would be a terror playing by modern rules and some would be hamstrung.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Agreed. One thing I'm not sure about... are we playing by today's rules? I assume yes. Some of those old dudes would be a terror playing by modern rules and some would be hamstrung.

Yeah.  For example, How would LT fare under today's drug-testing rules? For me, I think we have to take each player for who they were and how they played at their time (and presumably at their peak) but I guess that's part of the fun of the debating who has the better team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Yeah.  For example, How would LT fare under today's drug-testing rules? For me, I think we have to take each player for who they were and how they played at their time (and presumably at their peak) but I guess that's part of the fun of the debating who has the better team.

You have to take them at their time. Different rules and players are bigger now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, New York Mick said:

You have to take them at their time. Different rules and players are bigger now. 

Agreed.  

Another factor that will be one for debate is how to evaluate career greatness vs. peak greatness.  This will come up a lot but will come to a head when someone drafts Bo Jackson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Yeah.  For example, How would LT fare under today's drug-testing rules? For me, I think we have to take each player for who they were and how they played at their time (and presumably at their peak) but I guess that's part of the fun of the debating who has the better team. 

 

16 minutes ago, New York Mick said:

You have to take them at their time. Different rules and players are bigger now. 

 

Since it all comes down to a vote, I imagine there will be bias towards more modern players.  People have trouble in judging purely based on the players and their contemporaries rather than across eras.  Because in the method we're doing, you're building a team, and people will be voting based on which team would beat the other team head to head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

How is a winner determined?

Head-to-Head matchups.  Matchup seedings will be determined in round 2 based on round 1 voting performance, since we have 24 teams (rather than 16 or 32).

Thus, you can earn a bye in round 2 depending on how much you dominate your opponent in the polls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

 

Since it all comes down to a vote, I imagine there will be bias towards more modern players.  People have trouble in judging purely based on the players and their contemporaries rather than across eras.  Because in the method we're doing, you're building a team, and people will be voting based on which team would beat the other team head to head. 

Isnt that the point ... try to vote based on players .. not modern day biases ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

 

Since it all comes down to a vote, I imagine there will be bias towards more modern players.  People have trouble in judging purely based on their contemporaries.  Because in the method we're doing, you're building a team, and people will be voting based on which team would beat the other team head to head. 

Probably depends on the age of each voter too.  Us older guys remember how dominant certain players were because we watched them.  But for me, hearing about how great some guys were in the 50s and early 60s doesn't have the same vibe because all I have to go on are short video snippets, stats and account from people who watched them play.  I imagine people who grew up in the 80s may not have the same reverence for some of the greats of the 70s.  

One thing I can say for certain.  You need to have a thick skin if you are in this.  No matter how smart you think you are, someone else will think you're an idiot on almost every pick.  And of those, a few will voice their opinions out loud.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'd like to propose a rule change for the voting process, @Lith and @Paradis.

How about in the 2nd round, we end up with 16 teams?  The way we'd do that is the 12 winners would advance, PLUS 4 "wild card" spots that go to the highest vote-getters who lost.  We'd re-seed 1-16 based on round 1 voting, with the 4 wild cards getting the bottom 4 slots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

 

Since it all comes down to a vote, I imagine there will be bias towards more modern players.  People have trouble in judging purely based on the players and their contemporaries rather than across eras.  Because in the method we're doing, you're building a team, and people will be voting based on which team would beat the other team head to head. 

Your biased towards skirt wearing pussies?  In a football game? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

Your biased towards skirt wearing pussies?  In a football game? 

By "more modern" I mean that players from the 80s-present might get favoritism over the players from the 70s and earlier.  Not everyone in this has seen the older players play. 

I, personally, will try not to pre-judge the modern players to be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Your biased towards skirt wearing pussies?  In a football game? 

Speaking of which, just thinking about Tom Brady playing in the 80s against LT and a few of his more aggressive contemporaries puts a smirk on my face.  He would not have thrived in that era unless he grew a much hairier pair.

 

BTW - this reminds me that we should generally not mention names here that haven't been drafted.  It's not usually a hard rule, but it's frustrating when you're a few picks away and someone mentions xxx and he gets drafted right before you so try to use your best judgment on that.

Exceptions are when you are talking about a very specific topic (like skirt-wearing pussies) and a certain name is just so appropriate (like Tom Brady) that it's not really a "hey, why hasn't this guy been drafted" moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nycdan said:

Speaking of which, just thinking about Tom Brady playing in the 80s against LT and a few of his more aggressive contemporaries puts a smirk on my face.  He would not have thrived in that era unless he grew a much hairier pair.

The whining to the refs would be BIBLICAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Probably depends on the age of each voter too.  Us older guys remember how dominant certain players were because we watched them.  But for me, hearing about how great some guys were in the 50s and early 60s doesn't have the same vibe because all I have to go on are short video snippets, stats and account from people who watched them play.  I imagine people who grew up in the 80s may not have the same reverence for some of the greats of the 70s.  

One thing I can say for certain.  You need to have a thick skin if you are in this.  No matter how smart you think you are, someone else will think you're an idiot on almost every pick.  And of those, a few will voice their opinions out loud.   

 

There are very few "dumb picks" in my mind.  Everyone will have a different style of roster they're trying to build.  Maybe someone will try to pound the rock with a pair of dominant backs?  Maybe another team will build from the "outside in" and draft a bunch of DB's early, so that they can blitz the sh*t out of teams every down?  That's the fun of it.  But unless you take a massive reach on a player who just isn't simply an all-time great at his position, I don't see any reason to knock any picks heavily.  It's all about different perspectives in a highly subjective exercise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...