2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Lower rated by whom though?  One guy has to make the final decision, and if that person prefers the 'lower rated' player according to the evaluations of others, is that really bad process or just a difference of opinion?

 

 

Let's dig it down... you and I have discussed Justin Jefferson at length.   Let's say that you, me and e45 are in the war room.  Our turn comes to select and we have Jefferson, Reagor and Mims sitting there on the board.  
e45's likely ranking of those 3 would be: Reagor, Mims, Jefferson (I believe he's said he doesn't want Jefferson before Round 3, which I believe is just hyperbolic, but whatever).

My ranking is: Jefferson, Reagor, Mims. 

Your ranking, I think, would be Mims, Reagor, Jefferson.

 

So, who would the pick be?  It would come down to who has the final say.  And while it might have been 'settled' prior to the final moment, that doesn't mean that everyone was truly on board with that ranking.  So, they use the time allotted to make their final arguments for the different players.  And while, in a vacuum, I might agree to take Reagor over Jefferson in the days leading up to the draft, the truth is... if push came to shove and I had to put a name on the card, it would be hard for me to write a name other than Jefferson.  So, if I'm in charge, the 'higher' rated player, Reagor would likely not be the pick.  Meanwhile, if you were in charge, you'd likely put down Mims, but e45 and I would feel that he's not the higher rated player.   And what if the argument is between coaches versus scouts?  The scouts have more information, perhaps, but the coach is the one who would have to work with this player on a day in and day out basis.  So, who do you lean with?   It's not a black and white situation.  

The point is: arguments in the war room SHOULD happen during the draft, especially in the early rounds.  I fear groupthink.  No way I want everyone thinking exactly the same way leading up to the pick.  BUT... once the pick is made, then everybody puts aside their differences and unite behind the choice.   And if the coach gets the player he didn't prefer, it doesn't matter and he now has to work with that guy to maximize him.  OR, if the scout gets overruled, maybe he needs to realign himself with the traits the coach prefers.  

I just think that there's more than one way to run a war room.  And while the basics of the board is likely built... it likely isn't really as simple A over B over C.  I like B, you like A, and e45 likes C.  Who's right?  

According to McLane, Campbell was higher on the team’s final draft board. To wait until you’re on the clock to determine which WR you want when the board has been set is silly. Only five WRs were drafted at that point. They should have come to an agreement well before being on the clock.

To follow your exercise, what you, me or E45 think about the players should be put  aside by that point. The board is the board. Now if it got to that point and we’re debating taking a DE vs WR based on need, positional value, etc., sure, that’s a real debate. To have a debate about two players at the same position in round 2 when we have a draft board set is really unproductive with a running clock is not good process. It shows a lack of preparedness. I don’t see how that’s up for debate. I really don’t. 

3 minutes ago, RLC said:

It's that simple in RD2. Those decisions needed to already happen. They're WR rankings; it's not like they had already picked a WR and they had to reevaluate which 2nd WR would be a better fit.

Thank you. This doesn’t mean the entire process is bad, but in that case they went away from it and that’s not good.

3 minutes ago, RLC said:

It's that simple in RD2. Those decisions needed to already happen. They're WR rankings; it's not like they had already picked a WR and they had to reevaluate which 2nd WR would be a better fit.

I disagree.

 

In Round 2, we have people who love Aiyuk, others hate him.  We have people that love Hamler, others hate him.  Pittman, same story, though he gets talked about far less, because very few really like him.

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

How do you know the market for Fournette isn’t thin? 

Yes, I agree that he had productive counting stats last year and am arguing that he still wasn’t good in the passing game (which is what I think he meant, but obviously couldn’t say for sure). 

The market will be thin if he's asking for what Spotrac thinks his market value is ($11M), just like it's thin for Clowney right now asking for $18-20M, but he's still young enough and good enough he will be a lead RB for somebody.  I'm pretty confident in that.

All depends on JAX's asking price as well.  Ngakoue should have been traded a year ago when he made it clear he was holding out; the Jags are historically very stubborn on trading players.  It worked out for them with Ramsey, but I don't think it will with Ngakoue and Fournette.

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I disagree.

 

In Round 2, we have people who love Aiyuk, others hate him.  We have people that love Hamler, others hate him.  Pittman, same story, though he gets talked about far less, because very few really like him.

The draft board should make that decision very easy. Otherwise why have one?

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

According to McLane, Campbell was higher on the team’s final draft board. To wait until you’re on the clock to determine which WR you want when the board has been set is silly. Only five WRs were drafted at that point. They should have come to an agreement well before being on the clock.

To follow your exercise, what you, me or E45 think about the players should be put  aside by that point. The board is the board. Now if it got to that point and we’re debating taking a DE vs WR based on need, positional value, etc., sure, that’s a real debate. To have a debate about two players at the same position in round 2 when we have a draft board set is really unproductive with a running clock is not good process. It shows a lack of preparedness. I don’t see how that’s up for debate. I really don’t. 

Thank you. This doesn’t mean the entire process is bad, but in that case they went away from it and that’s not good.

I don't believe in a static board.

 

I agree that it may not be ideal at specific positions, but clearly, they struggle to evaluate WRs.  Likely they should start the George Costanza model for WR drafting and just do the opposite.  

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I disagree.

 

In Round 2, we have people who love Aiyuk, others hate him.  We have people that love Hamler, others hate him.  Pittman, same story, though he gets talked about far less, because very few really like him.

The entire points of working in January-April with the entire scouting staff is to figure this out before the clock hits.

You don't study for the exam during the exam!

Just now, ManuManu said:

The draft board should make that decision very easy. Otherwise why have one?

Because individuals feel differently.  And their opinions can be taken into account, even after the board is 'built'.  I like dynamics... I like arguments.  

 

 

But, clearly the end result... selecting JJAW was a mistake.  But, Campbell didn't really prove himself to be dramatically better.  10 catches for 169 yards versus 18 for 127 yards, 1 TD each.   Meh... too soon to know that Campbell was a better choice over JJAW.  Maybe he would be, maybe not.  But, I think we are all disappointed by JJAW right now.

4 minutes ago, RLC said:

The entire points of working in January-April with the entire scouting staff is to figure this out before the clock hits.

You don't study for the exam during the exam!

During an open notes exam, you can.   Not ideal, but it can happen.

38 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

You look almost good enough to be a cook at taco bell. 

They don’t cook at Taco Bell, they reheat.   Brought in from the factory.   You are paying some sniffling sixteen year old to heat and assemble.  

1 minute ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Because individuals feel differently.  And their opinions can be taken into account, even after the board is 'built'.  I like dynamics... I like arguments.  

 

 

But, clearly the end result... selecting JJAW was a mistake.  But, Campbell didn't really prove himself to be dramatically better.  10 catches for 169 yards versus 18 for 127 yards, 1 TD each.   Meh... too soon to know that Campbell was a better choice over JJAW.  Maybe he would be, maybe not.  But, I think we are all disappointed by JJAW right now.

During an open notes exam, you can.   Not ideal, but it can happen.

You would agree that’s not good process though, right?

Also, Campbell had about five different injuries and missed half the season. But all of that is beside the point. 

Just now, BigEFly said:

They don’t cook at Taco Bell, they reheat.   Brought in from the factory.   You are paying some sniffling sixteen year old to heat and assemble.  

If they are sniffling, they better be wearing a mask.  I don't want any 'special sauce' in my chalupa.

Just now, BigEFly said:

They don’t cook at Taco Bell, they reheat.   Brought in from the factory.   You are paying some sniffling sixteen year old to heat and assemble.  

When I was a lot younger I got into the habit of stopping off for fast food at Burger King on the way home from work.  I worked long hours and it was right there, a block from my home.  I would hit the drive-thru and my food was prepared in less than 5 minutes.  Then one day, instead of doing the drive thru, I walked in to pick up my order -- a bunch of decidedly un-clean looking 14 and 15-year-olds preparing my food.  

I was scared straight.

45 minutes ago, Green_Guinness said:

This is my wheelhouse, right here.  Can't wait to plant my garden this year, probably in 2 weeks going by the weather forecast.  Loading up on an assortment of peppers, tomatoes and rosemary.  Banana peppers and other spicy varieties do well for me.  Bell peppers not so much.

 

Poblanos? Hatch chiles

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

You would agree that’s not good process though, right?

Also, Campbell had about five different injuries and missed half the season. But all of that is beside the point. 

In isolated situations, it is what it is.  I work in the field of science, where the answer to a question changes as new information is discovered.  So, I don't want the board chiseled in stone.  I don't know why they were questioning their pre-draft board rankings, and no one seems to be sharing that information.  Maybe the argument was actually about the medicals?    I will agree that it is not ideal.

 

I think you can agree that the last thing this WR corps needs is yet another WR with injury concerns.  Alshon - injured may miss the full season.  Desean - injured last season and likely to miss a game or two again.   This team needs less MASH unit players.  

 

At the end of the day, the thing that ultimately determines whether or not a draft pick was a 'good' one versus a bad one is production on the field.  Trev Alberts wasn't exactly a bad player... but as it turned out, it was a bad pick for the Colts.  

13 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't believe in a static board.

 

I agree that it may not be ideal at specific positions, but clearly, they struggle to evaluate WRs.  Likely they should start the George Costanza model for WR drafting and just do the opposite.  

I think you can have a little of both types of thinking (firm-flex). They can be firm on their board in some cases like 1st round and WRS, and still have flexibility like 2nd round and any contingencies (trades etc). However: if they are waiting until the day of the draft to have a debate to decide between 3,4 or 5 players (especially at the same position), that is a real problem. Those decisions needed to be hashed out weeks prior. All I know is that getting consensus from any group is an art form.

7 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Poblanos? Hatch chiles

Last year did chili peppers, Jalapenos, some jumbo spicy pepper that I don't recall the name.  But the banana peppers grow like weeds in my garden.  They are the kings of the garden.

 

36 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Tragically, I have grown lactose intolerant while aging, so mozzarella is out. I’m good with aged hard cheeses where the lactose is negligible. Parmigiano reggiano, certain cheddars, gruyere, a few others. Hmm. French onion soup tonight is now on my menu. Thanks for the inspiration.😊

Love French onion soup.   

I drink milk every day to keep my body used to digesting lactose.   Don’t know if that is an old wives tale but I prefer to think it works.

6 minutes ago, Inigo Montoya said:

I think you can have a little of both types of thinking (firm-flex). They can be firm on their board in some cases like 1st round and WRS, and still have flexibility like 2nd round and any contingencies (trades etc). However: if they are waiting until the day of the draft to have a debate to decide between 3,4 or 5 players (especially at the same position), that is a real problem. Those decisions needed to be hashed out weeks prior. All I know is that getting consensus from any group is an art form.

Sure.  Not ideal, but we don't know what they were arguing about.   So, as usual, we have folks digging in heels about what they believe should be the way it works with less than the full picture.  Do you know what the discussion centered on?  

We also don't know that this is a common occurrence rather than an outlier.  Seemingly everyone was on board with Sanders.  But, not with JJAW.  Which one is more often the way it works?  I don't know.  Neither do any of us.  

21 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If they are sniffling, they better be wearing a mask.  I don't want any 'special sauce' in my chalupa.

Sixteen year old wearing a mask.  

6 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Sure.  Not ideal, but we don't know what they were arguing about.   So, as usual, we have folks digging in heels about what they believe should be the way it works with less than the full picture.  Do you know what the discussion centered on?  

We also don't know that this is a common occurrence rather than an outlier.  Seemingly everyone was on board with Sanders.  But, not with JJAW.  Which one is more often the way it works?  I don't know.  Neither do any of us.  

Whatever they were arguing about (outside of a Tunsil situation) what would there be to debate that couldn’t have been discussed well beforehand when building your draft board?

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

Whatever they were arguing about (outside of a Tunsil situation) what would there be to debate that couldn’t have been discussed well beforehand when building your draft board?

I don't know.  Maybe their security team uncovered something.  Maybe they were tipped off by a coach...

 

I don't know.  And when I don't know, I try not to cast aspersions.  The real question to me is:  Is this the norm or was this an anomaly?  

 

If this is the norm, then that's bad.  If this was an anomaly, then its not worth wasting time on.   I prefer to believe its an anomaly, as we really haven't heard about anything like this before.  

9 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I don't believe in a static board.

 

I agree that it may not be ideal at specific positions, but clearly, they struggle to evaluate WRs.  Likely they should start the George Costanza model for WR drafting and just do the opposite.  

Nor do I. Take last year as an example. It is not unreasonable to think the Eagles were eyeing Marquise Brown, assuming they wanted a WR. He would be there at a fair value. They assumed that Dillard would be long gone. When he fell, they shuffled their board and chose their highest rated player. This is not unlike my hypothesizing about choosing Andrew Thomas should he fall to us, even though he does not fill a pressing need. Having made the Dillard pick, then Sanders, the need for a WR had become more pressing and JJAW was a need pick. Looks bad now, we all agree, but there is still time. He clearly didn't know how to play WR coming in and the coaches did him no favors. So...we got new coaches.

Ed Orgeron needs subtitles 

4 minutes ago, justrelax said:

Nor do I. Take last year as an example. It is not unreasonable to think the Eagles were eyeing Marquise Brown, assuming they wanted a WR. He would be there at a fair value. They assumed that Dillard would be long gone. When he fell, they shuffled their board and chose their highest rated player. This is not unlike my hypothesizing about choosing Andrew Thomas should he fall to us, even though he does not fill a pressing need. Having made the Dillard pick, then Sanders, the need for a WR had become more pressing and JJAW was a need pick. Looks bad now, we all agree, but there is still time. He clearly didn't know how to play WR coming in and the coaches did him no favors. So...we got new coaches.

That's actually a great point.  

 

The argument will be made that they should have run through a scenario like that before the draft, etc. etc.   I, for one, was floored by Dillard sitting there.

@FranklinFldEBUpper

17 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

In isolated situations, it is what it is.  I work in the field of science, where the answer to a question changes as new information is discovered.  So, I don't want the board chiseled in stone.  I don't know why they were questioning their pre-draft board rankings, and no one seems to be sharing that information.  Maybe the argument was actually about the medicals?    I will agree that it is not ideal.

 

I think you can agree that the last thing this WR corps needs is yet another WR with injury concerns.  Alshon - injured may miss the full season.  Desean - injured last season and likely to miss a game or two again.   This team needs less MASH unit players.  

 

At the end of the day, the thing that ultimately determines whether or not a draft pick was a 'good' one versus a bad one is production on the field.  Trev Alberts wasn't exactly a bad player... but as it turned out, it was a bad pick for the Colts.  

If they have done their job correctly, the board should be set and trusted.   Now I could see where one of the WRs was ranked a 6.35 and the other a 6.32, for example.  Maybe the 6.35 is projected as a slot/Z. The other an X/slot.   The Z has some injury concern.  The X has does not.  Alshon cap hit has an expiration date on it.  He has an injury history because the way he plays he has a lot of contested balls.   While DJax is older and misses some games, it is not surgery type injuries.  In the slot they have a player in his contract year with little health concerns backed up by Hollins.  So they can select the X and groom him for a year to eventually replace Alshon.   So the 6.32 gets picked.  

As I understand it, the Eagles aren’t posting names above each other, they are posting grades.  I suspect any conversations revolve around the reasoning for the grades.