Then maybe you should stop twisting my words.
Debates are more fun when they are honest.
And didn’t Amazon stock take a huge dip last week or so?..and I’ve heard of guys who make their livings buying and selling penny stocks. Can’t you theoretically make just as much, if not more, with penny stocks? I’ve never dabbled, so I’m asking.
If I have $100 of Amazon stock and $100 of a penny stock and both go up 20%, wouldn’t I make the same money?
At this point it sounds like I am your girlfriend, and you are a cheating boyfriend who’s trying to talk himself out of something…and making zero sense.
Never trade down if Simmons isn’t there. I think he could be that play maker we are looking for. Then again what do I know.
I think that’s closer to the truth for most all of us even those that won’t admit it. However from what I understand one poster has an extremely talented dog who could very well be our next GM according to that poster describing the dog’s ability to draft better than our current GM. No hypebole there. LOL
Penny stocks cost a penny because you get what you pay for—they are notoriously risky. The point of the analogy is that some investments are safer than others.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say you are really gunning for a romantic connection over here. First you want to go head-to-head and now fantasies of being my gf.
While flattered, I’m in no way interested, my friend.
If you’re going to keep making this argument about “picked after 5”, of course the number is going to be higher. There’s more players taken.
Further, you need to consider the actual number taken at all. Because, again, there’s going to be a larger number, even in 6-10 than 1-5 due to the # of QBs taken.
I’m sure there is valuable data to reference, but as it’s currently being stated, it doesn’t mean anything.
The dude compared picks at #5 to penny stocks. Are you really going on that hill with him?
Not arguing about penny stocks reference. Just saying that a comparison of top-5 to all others is not proving anything.
I’m not trying to compare the top 5 to “all others.” I could if I wanted to, because of how he framed the argument. But I’m not doing that, and made specific references that I was throwing out any consideration of a Jared Allen type situation. He framed the discussion that a team has to “get lucky” to land a pass rusher at #5, which is an insane stance to take. Are you in agreement that its Chase Young or bust?
No, I’m not. Just saying that a reference of # of successful pass-rushers taken after 5 is going to have more hits because the number of players selected is much higher.
There’s a numbers argument to make, but not how you are .
A valuable comparison might be:
How does the success rate of the 1st Edge rusher taken compare to remaining edge rushers taken in the top 7. That’s a blue-chip to 1st round grade comp.
Aren’t they usually statisticians?
He says you have to “get lucky” to get one at 5. You are attempting to transform the argument into something that it’s not. That’s how bad of an argument it is. You WANT to join in but can’t possibly defend his position.
He’s making an argument for giving up a top 10 pick for a blue chip player.
To make a numbers comparison, show the success rate of the 1st rusher taken compared to the success rate of the top 10 (I’d narrow it to 7 or 8 since that’s were we’re actually picking).
If the number is 100% compared to 50%, he’s right. If it’s 90% to 90% or close, he’s wrong.
You are still trying to reformulate the argument.
Yes and no. Scrap your idea of penny stock. Let it be what it is in THIS context. A top 7 pick.
Do I want to move up within the top 7 for the premier pass-rusher in the draft?
What does history say (which you were alluding to earlier, though now narrowed within our range).
So, that would be taking a pass rusher with our pick at our spot compared to taking the premier pass-rusher.
If you’re expanding your argument to be any round, then you have to consider not just the number of successes, but also the number of failures. You’ve done this work before. You know the odds of success continue to decline the deeper you go. Can you get a pass-rusher? Sure. How many tries will it take? That’s a can of worms, IMO, plus you already know the math has proven out a lower success rate. Thus, return the comp to where we sit. Do I need to move up from 5 to 4 or 3 like Chicago did for Trubisky? We’re not talking jumps like the Falcons or the Saints. We’re talking leveraging future picks to move around within the top 5-10.
I already said I’m staying put, and the data backs me up for doing so. He was making an alternative argument that wasn’t based on the data. Let’s go back to the beginning:
Wes: “No thanks. If we can’t get a quality football player with the 4th or 5th overall pick, then Quinn doesn’t deserve to be here anyways.”
FW: “The issue isn’t just getting a good player @4-5. We need to generate a pass rush if we want a chance at making the playoffs. There’s no guarantee we will be able to get a quality pass rusher where we end up drafting.”
Wes: “There is always a pass rusher available at #5 or later.”
FW: "One of these penny stocks is sure to turn into a blue-chipper. Think I’ll sell off all of my Amazon stock and just buy a bunch of promising penny stocks.”
Wes: “If taking a pass rusher at #5 or later is a “penny stock,” than you are in the wrong business. Guys like Khalil Mack and Bradley Chubb sure as heck aren’t “penny stocks.” Of the top 20 or so guys in sacks this season, only 3 of them were taken earlier than the 5th pick (Myles Garrett and the Bosa brothers).”
I stand by my position.
To answer the original question. No I would not like that kind of move. While CY might turn out to be a great player, there is no guarantee. Now add in the fact that we have all seen times that the 2nd or 3rd player at any certain position may turn out to be the best player after a couple of seasons. So no I would not to BQ to give up future draft picks from the 1st round to move up 2 or 3 spots just for CY, because no matter how his evaluation ends up there is still as much of a chance that he will be a bust as there is that he will be an elite player in the NFL. If BQ is going to give up 1st round picks it had better be for a known commodity, not a hope…
Now that we hopefully satisfied Quinn’s irrational desire for a HOF level TE on a team that targets a 34 year old #3 WR more than their #8OA TE.
2 Likes