Gun to your head WR scenario

**Brien Jackson** · 04-23-2014, 11:18 AM

Who was the last team with a prototypical #1 receiver to win the Superbowl? The Packers in 45? Giants in 42? Colts in 41? The last three champions certainly haven't had one.

**bt12483** · 04-23-2014, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

If they take one of these three guys AT 17, I'll come back and apologize. IF they don't, you come back and admit it was a completely stupid scenario. Period, that's it.

The only reason I picked Lee, beckham and Cooks is because on most big boards those are the WRs rated as 1st rd talent and likely to be there at 17. The odds are clearly stacked against me in your proposal in that I have to nail 1 of 3 explicit players to satisfy the bet.

This is all silly. I really don't care. I just think you are a little over the top in your perceived certainty of what will happen and what the teams needs are.

**alien bird** · 04-23-2014, 11:26 AM

While I've been making the point that value is in the eye of the GM with the pick, and it may be far different than what we think it should be, I don't think the Ravens will go WR in the first round if they can't trade back into the 20s or so. In fact, it might be that grunt-type players (OT, G, DE, DT, LB) are going to be more coveted by GMs than they are by media and fans, and some of these WRs are going to be available in the 2nd and 3rd round. It happens almost every year that fans/media value players differently than some GMs do.

Then again, I could be completely wrong and the Ravens do end up with a WR not named Evans or Watkins, and they use the 17th pick to get him. If that's the case, I'm going to trust that Ozzie knows what he is doing. The bottom line is that they know a hell of a lot more than you or I do about perceived and real value when it comes to the draft.

**Brien Jackson** · 04-23-2014, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by bt12483

This is all silly. I really don't care.

Lulz.

**jonboy79** · 04-23-2014, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by bt12483

The only reason I picked Lee, beckham and Cooks is because on most big boards those are the WRs rated as 1st rd talent and likely to be there at 17. The odds are clearly stacked against me in your proposal in that I have to nail 1 of 3 explicit players to satisfy the bet.

This is all silly. I really don't care. I just think you are a little over the top in your perceived certainty of what will happen and what the teams needs are.

Your scenario proposed us to discuss only those players. You are now seeing why we thought it was a dumb thread....

Just like I thought you were a little dumb in your protectiveness that these were the only three players we were allowed to talk about in this thread....

**jonboy79** · 04-23-2014, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by alien bird

While I've been making the point that value is in the eye of the GM with the pick, and it may be far different than what we think it should be, I don't think the Ravens will go WR in the first round if they can't trade back into the 20s or so. In fact, it might be that grunt-type players (OT, G, DE, DT, LB) are going to be more coveted by GMs than they are by media and fans, and some of these WRs are going to be available in the 2nd and 3rd round. It happens almost every year that fans/media value players differently than some GMs do.

.

That's been my point the whole time. These three players, who are, IMO, only marginally better WR's then could be available up to two full rounds later, provide poor value for the ravens at the #17 overall pick. Jordan Matthews(or any number of other players, 2 full rounds later provide MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better value)(as would also any position we actually NEED).

**bt12483** · 04-23-2014, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Brien Jackson

Who was the last team with a prototypical #1 receiver to win the Superbowl? The Packers in 45? Giants in 42? Colts in 41? The last three champions certainly haven't had one.

It is about distributing draft pick talent more equally IMO. Perhaps a more long term view than you have.

I created a thread that shows both WR and S as the areas of the team with the least invested in them in terms of draft rd stock.

Indeed, we signed a soon to be 35 year old WR (3rd rd pick) and may have found a decent player in Brown as a UDFA. Outside of that we have spent a 2nd rounder at WR. All other recent WR picks are rd. 4 or lower. Jacoby was a 3rd rd pick.

S just got a 1st rd pick last year.

As a team we have not invested much in WR.

**Brien Jackson** · 04-23-2014, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by bt12483

It is about distributing draft pick talent more equally IMO.

Who the hell cares about that?

**bt12483** · 04-23-2014, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

Your scenario proposed us to discuss only those players. You are now seeing why we thought it was a dumb thread....

Just like I thought you were a little dumb in your protectiveness that these were the only three players we were allowed to talk about in this thread....

Because I didn't want to have a limitless thread topic. It is stupid to provide guideline boundaries to focus discussion?

It was simply an exercise in matching current big board WR rankings to our spot 17.

Kiper has Cooks ranked 12 overall. Beckham 13 overall. Lee 23 overall. We have 17. If it is stupid to correlate the rankings of those particular WRs to spot 17...well I disagree. Kipers range of those WRs runs from 12-23. 17 is literally right in the middle of that range.

**bt12483** · 04-23-2014, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Brien Jackson

Who the hell cares about that?

Me. Next question.

Obviously you aren't a fucking NFL GM, so who cares about YOUR opinion? Who cares about what anyone thinks? Why does this forum exist?

You and jonboy better hope and pray they don't go WR at 17, because the amount of shit you two are talking over a simple hypothetical scenario is overkill. You both seem to think you know more than anyone else regarding the draft, and ONLY your opinion of what will happen is the logical scenario. If they draft WR at 17, you better believe I am going to rub it in for a very looong time given the amount you two are running your mouth.

Christ.

**bt12483** · 04-23-2014, 11:41 AM

can a mod just close the thread?

I dont need to hear two guys that think they know it all berating a simple hypo thread because they dont want the team to pick WR at 17, and anyone that wants a WR at 17 is "stupid."

**Brien Jackson** · 04-23-2014, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by bt12483

Me. Next question.

So would you like th Ravens to return the Superbowl 47 trophy? They didn't have a first round pick at WR, TE, or RB on the team!

Seriously, that's a beyond meaningless stat that's totally devoid of context without comparing, ya know, how much TALENT they have at the position. How many WRs that got drafted aren't as good as Marlon Brown, for example? And it tell you nothing about value, and there's certainly no reason to think you have to have an even distribution of draft picks across your roster to put together a good team. You're just coming up with nonsensical arguments to justify your obsession with drafting a WR.

"You and jonboy better hope and pray they don't go WR at 17, because the amount of shit you two are talking over a simple hypothetical scenario is overkill. "

Um...I'm hoping and praying they don't pick a WR (other than Watkins or Evans, obviously) at 17 because that would be a really, really, bad pick in terms of value and present roster. Not to win some pointless internet discussion with someone who thinks you need to rotate your first round picks by position to keep everything even or something.