Redskins Sign Grossman

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Audi

Summary:
Matt Leinart was not ranked in the Top 4 and thus was not taken in the Top 4. The Jets took Ferguson because Ferguson was rated higher than Leinart, not due to some philosophy that they believed an equally rated OT was more valuable than an equally rated QB.

That is why my example of David Carr vs Mike Williams applies, while your example of Ferguson vs Leinart does not.

Now your making some sense with the first sentence.


Your premises about "surprise" and GM omniscience is still a load of bull and you have not produced real evidence of a fatal flaw in Leinart. Continue worshipping you god, Polian.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Now your making some sense with the first sentence.

Your premises about "surprise" and GM omniscience is still a load of bull and you have not produced real evidence of a fatal flaw in Leinart. Continue worshipping you god, Polian.

So what you're trying to say is that Matt Leinart should have gone higher and should be ranked as Ferguson's equal in terms of value.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Audi

So what you're trying to say is that Matt Leinart should have gone higher and should be ranked as Ferguson's equal in terms of value.

Nope, I agree Leinart was rated lower than Ferguson by the Jets, but how much lower is only known to the Jets scouting department. But they still took the LT even though the QB was not that much lower rated, assuming that the team draft grades corresponds to actual draft order.


It's just that you cannot grasp the concept of multiple expected outcomes and thus lack of surprise at any of them and that you cling to a preemptive collective decision-making model when it comes to teams deciding the draft order.

[Dogtag]

Hiring a QB Mentor/player is not a bad move. Makes sense to only offer a one-year deal. He is familiar with the system and coach ... we could have done much worse things.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Nope, I agree Leinart was rated lower than Ferguson by the Jets, but how much lower is only known to the Jets scouting department. But they still took the LT even though the QB was not that much lower rated, assuming that the team draft grades corresponds to actual draft order.

It's just that you cannot grasp the concept of multiple expected outcomes and thus lack of surprise at any of them and that you cling to a preemptive collective decision-making model when it comes to teams deciding the draft order.

If you agree Leinart was rated lower than Ferguson, then the argument is over. They took Ferguson because he was rated higher, not because they decided on a philosophy of LT over QB. Thanks for proving my point.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Audi

If you agree Leinart was rated lower than Ferguson, then the argument is over. They took Ferguson because he was rated higher, not because they decided on a philosophy of LT over QB. Thanks for proving my point.

No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?

[Audi]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?

My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Audi

My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.

A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".

Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".

If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.

Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.

So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?