2008 three year-evaluation

SirClintonPortis · 11-04-2010, 11:54 PM

In hindsight, we could have just stayed pat with BPA and have taken Sam Baker. BPA being the player the lowest probability of not busting

But for all you all who would have said "BUT WE ALREADY HAD CHRIS SAMUELS" fellas who would be shocked at drafting for the future, I think 2009 showed why apparently irrational decisions are actually very rational.

Also, we could have done a better job of ignoring "need", which in this case was "Size at WR" and instead took the "playmaker" least likely to bust REGARDLESS OF SIZE.

Fred Davis was a good decision, IMO.

steveo395 · 11-05-2010, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

In hindsight, we could have just stayed pat with BPA and have taken Sam Baker. BPA being the player the lowest probability of not busting

But for all you all who would have said "BUT WE ALREADY HAD CHRIS SAMUELS" fellas who would be shocked at drafting for the future, I think 2009 showed why apparently irrational decisions are actually very rational.

Also, we could have done a better job of ignoring "need", which in this case was "Size at WR" and instead took the "playmaker" least likely to bust REGARDLESS OF SIZE.

Fred Davis was a good decision, IMO.

Too bad Vinny came out and said that if he stayed at that pick he would have taken Devin Thomas.

skinster · 11-05-2010, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

In hindsight, we could have just stayed pat with BPA and have taken Sam Baker. BPA being the player the lowest probability of not busting

But for all you all who would have said "BUT WE ALREADY HAD CHRIS SAMUELS" fellas who would be shocked at drafting for the future, I think 2009 showed why apparently irrational decisions are actually very rational.

Also, we could have done a better job of ignoring "need", which in this case was "Size at WR" and instead took the "playmaker" least likely to bust REGARDLESS OF SIZE.

Fred Davis was a good decision, IMO.

what does bpa stand for?

SirClintonPortis · 11-05-2010, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveo395

Too bad Vinny came out and said that if he stayed at that pick he would have taken Devin Thomas.

Even more reason to thank God that dumbass is out of here.

SirClintonPortis · 11-05-2010, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinster

what does bpa stand for?

Best player available.

11-04-2010, 11:54 PM	#16
SirClintonPortis Pro Bowl Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,052	Re: 2008 three year-evaluation In hindsight, we could have just stayed pat with BPA and have taken Sam Baker. BPA being the player the lowest probability of not busting But for all you all who would have said "BUT WE ALREADY HAD CHRIS SAMUELS" fellas who would be shocked at drafting for the future, I think 2009 showed why apparently irrational decisions are actually very rational. Also, we could have done a better job of ignoring "need", which in this case was "Size at WR" and instead took the "playmaker" least likely to bust REGARDLESS OF SIZE. Fred Davis was a good decision, IMO. __________________ Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness". Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten. The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.

2008 three year-evaluation

Locker Room Main Forum