The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
I think scheme fit and play partners kept Savage at home more in center field, just my opinion, but when ya have basically two untested edge corners it will limit the freedom for a FS, even so at times he looked confused even doing some of that, so ya, he needs to play better, but we saw much better play from him prior, so to me it has to be scheme tasking.
I even said it in the following post. I asked the questions because I didn't know what your thinking was on the subject. I even stated as much in my 2nd post in the discussion. I wanted to avoid your favorite, "that's not what I meant," refrain. I am glad I asked because what you have come out with now is not what I ever would have thought you were referring to. There is no twisting going on.
I don't agree with the bold. What a player does in their career can not and does not confirm or refute a reach label. As I said, a reach is still considered a reach if a player is a Hall of Famer. It has everything to do with slotting and where people/draftniks think a player should go. Now that is all opinion, but it can be applied as fact, we just won't know about it. For example, if 1 GM has Joe Blow as a mid-first round player, picks him at 12, but all over GMs have him as a late-second round player, then that would be a reach. It's still a reach if Joe Blow becomes a hall of famer because the GM could have gotten Joe Blow at 44 and picked up Jim Suck at 12, presumably a more talented player than who he ended up taking at 44.NCF wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:21Yoop is using a very generally accepted definition of the term reach. It exists within the media draft community and can reasonably be determined at the time a player is drafted and certainly applied as the results of that players career confirm or refute the reach label.
100%The old adage, it only takes one... teams could not give a &%$@ less about this. It's a media and draft community thing that we talk about and discuss. It is 100% opinion and only in rare cases like the Collins example can you actually refute the opinion with concrete evidence.
no one ever said fact, and don't try and BS me, everyone in this forum new what I meant when I said consensus opinion because the conversation prior had been about draft grades, and how that related to Watkins, and the draftnik grades on himPckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:39This was my first post:
I even said it in the following post. I asked the questions because I didn't know what your thinking was on the subject. I even stated as much in my 2nd post in the discussion. I wanted to avoid your favorite, "that's not what I meant," refrain. I am glad I asked because what you have come out with now is not what I ever would have thought you were referring to. There is no twisting going on.
For the 3rd time, this isn't about a specific player. This isn't about Watson, never was. This was about labeling any player a reach and preaching that opinion as fact. The importance of the discussion is exemplified by your dragging Rashan Gary into the discussion.
Don't work so hard to be offended and you might find you aren't offended as often.
stfu, here you are again turning something basic into another trip down your convoluted rabbit hole, every player that is drafted above consensus grades is a reach pick, for christ sakes obviously some reach picks pan out, everyone in this forum KNOWS THIS.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:47I don't agree with the bold. What a player does in their career can not and does not confirm or refute a reach label. As I said, a reach is still considered a reach if a player is a Hall of Famer. It has everything to do with slotting and where people/draftniks think a player should go. Now that is all opinion, but it can be applied as fact, we just won't know about it. For example, if 1 GM has Joe Blow as a mid-first round player, picks him at 12, but all over GMs have him as a late-second round player, then that would be a reach. It's still a reach if Joe Blow becomes a hall of famer because the GM could have gotten Joe Blow at 44 and picked up Jim Suck at 12, presumably a more talented player than who he ended up taking at 44.NCF wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:21Yoop is using a very generally accepted definition of the term reach. It exists within the media draft community and can reasonably be determined at the time a player is drafted and certainly applied as the results of that players career confirm or refute the reach label.
100%The old adage, it only takes one... teams could not give a &%$@ less about this. It's a media and draft community thing that we talk about and discuss. It is 100% opinion and only in rare cases like the Collins example can you actually refute the opinion with concrete evidence.
Actually, fact was used by someone. Apparently not everyone did know, as we can see played out in the conversation. I specifically spelled out that it wasn't about Watson or any one player. I also spelled out that I was asking clarifying questions, nothing sinister.
Many people do take what the draftniks say as fact. It's why they get so upset over draft picks, because some draftniks said a player should go a round later or that another player would be a bust. You yourself are still upset about drafting Rashan Gary because of pre-draft scouting of him by draftniks.I'am done with this convo, your a bush beater, ya bounce around twisting anything said to suit whatever BS your spouting, now it's you saying I said the draftnik opinions where FACTS, quit adding words that where not said.
exactly, obviously on draft night the term REACH is only a opinion ( but obviously a educated opinion, these guys, well most of these draftniks work very hard at the craft, but like Collins we didn't know how valid those opinions where till several years later.NCF wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:21The old adage, it only takes one... teams could not give a &%$@ less about this. It's a media and draft community thing that we talk about and discuss. It is 100% opinion and only in rare cases like the Collins example can you actually refute the opinion with concrete evidence.
1
Now every pick drafted above the "consensus grades," is a reach? Automatically? So if we draft a player who's consensus is 23 at 22, that's a reach? What are we using to create this consensus grade? The 10 sites I used? More? Less? The point is there is no true consensus grade or draft board. As was said so often, have an opinion on the player and where they were drafted, but don't be so arrogant as to think your opinion matches what GMs think.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:01stfu, here you are again turning something basic into another trip down your convoluted rabbit hole, every player that is drafted above consensus grades is a reach pick, for christ sakes obviously some reach picks pan out, everyone in this forum KNOWS THIS.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:47I don't agree with the bold. What a player does in their career can not and does not confirm or refute a reach label. As I said, a reach is still considered a reach if a player is a Hall of Famer. It has everything to do with slotting and where people/draftniks think a player should go. Now that is all opinion, but it can be applied as fact, we just won't know about it. For example, if 1 GM has Joe Blow as a mid-first round player, picks him at 12, but all over GMs have him as a late-second round player, then that would be a reach. It's still a reach if Joe Blow becomes a hall of famer because the GM could have gotten Joe Blow at 44 and picked up Jim Suck at 12, presumably a more talented player than who he ended up taking at 44.NCF wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:21Yoop is using a very generally accepted definition of the term reach. It exists within the media draft community and can reasonably be determined at the time a player is drafted and certainly applied as the results of that players career confirm or refute the reach label.
100%The old adage, it only takes one... teams could not give a &%$@ less about this. It's a media and draft community thing that we talk about and discuss. It is 100% opinion and only in rare cases like the Collins example can you actually refute the opinion with concrete evidence.
No, it doesn't. What I mean is it gets lost with time. You think the draft community is diligent about owning up to their oversights? The players performance, IMO, muddles the initial analysis and the further you get away from the actual Draft, the muddier it becomes and the more and more everyone is an expert and never gets an eval wrong.
Gotcha, 100% agree.NCF wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:20What I mean is it gets lost with time. You think the draft community is diligent about owning up to their oversights? The players performance, IMO, muddles the initial analysis and the further you get away from the actual Draft, the muddier it becomes and the more and more everyone is an expert and never gets an eval wrong.
ahhhh, come on, you know very well why I didn't like using slot 12 on Gary, and I still stand by that opinion, I will always put readiness to play first of all over drafting a player I have to coach up, always, thats because I live for today, more so then tomorrow, if I want groomers I'll pick a guy like Watson in round two or laterPckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:06Actually, fact was used by someone. Apparently not everyone did know, as we can see played out in the conversation. I specifically spelled out that it wasn't about Watson or any one player. I also spelled out that I was asking clarifying questions, nothing sinister.Many people do take what the draftniks say as fact. It's why they get so upset over draft picks, because some draftniks said a player should go a round later or that another player would be a bust. You yourself are still upset about drafting Rashan Gary because of pre-draft scouting of him by draftniks.I'am done with this convo, your a bush beater, ya bounce around twisting anything said to suit whatever BS your spouting, now it's you saying I said the draftnik opinions where FACTS, quit adding words that where not said.
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:13Now every pick drafted above the "consensus grades," is a reach? Automatically? So if we draft a player who's consensus is 23 at 22, that's a reach? What are we using to create this consensus grade? The 10 sites I used? More? Less? The point is there is no true consensus grade or draft board. As was said so often, have an opinion on the player and where they were drafted, but don't be so arrogant as to think your opinion matches what GMs think.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:01stfu, here you are again turning something basic into another trip down your convoluted rabbit hole, every player that is drafted above consensus grades is a reach pick, for christ sakes obviously some reach picks pan out, everyone in this forum KNOWS THIS.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 11:47
I don't agree with the bold. What a player does in their career can not and does not confirm or refute a reach label. As I said, a reach is still considered a reach if a player is a Hall of Famer. It has everything to do with slotting and where people/draftniks think a player should go. Now that is all opinion, but it can be applied as fact, we just won't know about it. For example, if 1 GM has Joe Blow as a mid-first round player, picks him at 12, but all over GMs have him as a late-second round player, then that would be a reach. It's still a reach if Joe Blow becomes a hall of famer because the GM could have gotten Joe Blow at 44 and picked up Jim Suck at 12, presumably a more talented player than who he ended up taking at 44.
100%
Obviously, some picks who are considered reaches by the media pan out, I didn't say otherwise.
[/quote/]
seriously now, take two aspirin, and call your family doctor
I respect the job Draftniks do as well. Without out them we would have no draft info. That's why we have to listen to them, we are forced to to get the information we covet.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:29I respect the job Draftniks do, there opinions matter, they put in just about as much effort to get this right as GM's and scouts do, so when a bunch of them say a kid has a certain grade I listen, and often when ya check back several years later, often they where right, and the rare Collins gem picks doesn't change that.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:06Actually, fact was used by someone. Apparently not everyone did know, as we can see played out in the conversation. I specifically spelled out that it wasn't about Watson or any one player. I also spelled out that I was asking clarifying questions, nothing sinister.Many people do take what the draftniks say as fact. It's why they get so upset over draft picks, because some draftniks said a player should go a round later or that another player would be a bust. You yourself are still upset about drafting Rashan Gary because of pre-draft scouting of him by draftniks.I'am done with this convo, your a bush beater, ya bounce around twisting anything said to suit whatever BS your spouting, now it's you saying I said the draftnik opinions where FACTS, quit adding words that where not said.
come on, quit acting so goofy, It is obviously not a opinion forever, we all tend to grade drafted players after several years, we all know or can easily look up draft profile, when they where taken, and how that player performed, and that goes for later round players just as it does for first rounders, and at that time we can determine if the player has performed up to the slot he was taken, real simple.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:55I respect the job Draftniks do as well. Without out them we would have no draft info. That's why we have to listen to them, we are forced to to get the information we covet.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:29I respect the job Draftniks do, there opinions matter, they put in just about as much effort to get this right as GM's and scouts do, so when a bunch of them say a kid has a certain grade I listen, and often when ya check back several years later, often they where right, and the rare Collins gem picks doesn't change that.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:06
Actually, fact was used by someone. Apparently not everyone did know, as we can see played out in the conversation. I specifically spelled out that it wasn't about Watson or any one player. I also spelled out that I was asking clarifying questions, nothing sinister.
Many people do take what the draftniks say as fact. It's why they get so upset over draft picks, because some draftniks said a player should go a round later or that another player would be a bust. You yourself are still upset about drafting Rashan Gary because of pre-draft scouting of him by draftniks.
We will almost never know if they are right when labeling a guy a reach, so you can not say that often they are right. It's an opinion.
It absolutely is an opinion forever as we can't confirm it is a reach due to not being able to see the draft boards of all NFL teams.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 13:22come on, quit acting so goofy, It is obviously not a opinion forever, we all tend to grade drafted players after several years, we all know or can easily look up draft profile, when they where taken, and how that player performed, and that goes for later round players just as it does for first rounders, and at that time we can determine if the player has performed up to the slot he was taken, real simple.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:55I respect the job Draftniks do as well. Without out them we would have no draft info. That's why we have to listen to them, we are forced to to get the information we covet.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 12:29
I respect the job Draftniks do, there opinions matter, they put in just about as much effort to get this right as GM's and scouts do, so when a bunch of them say a kid has a certain grade I listen, and often when ya check back several years later, often they where right, and the rare Collins gem picks doesn't change that.
We will almost never know if they are right when labeling a guy a reach, so you can not say that often they are right. It's an opinion.
you seem intent on defending what GM's do, and they miss on just about as many picks as they do well at, do I need to bring up Detroit, Chi town, Jacksonvillie, Miami again
of course your defending GM's, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE A gm HAS SLOTTED THE PLAYER, WHAT MATTER"s IS THE SLOT HE TOOK THE PLAYER? WHAT ABOUT THAT CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND, sorry to get loud, but I can't seem to get through to you any other way, the pick tells us where the GM had that player rated, we don't need to see his draft board, and if that is a round higher then draftniks had him rated, they will most often say the pick was to high or the GM reached for that player, if the pick pans out, the GM found a great player, if not it is a confirmed reach, that you don't seem to agree with this is fine, I'am OK knowing that most fans do.
I'm not defending GMs, I am speaking to the truth of the situation.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 14:15of course your defending GM's, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE A gm HAS SLOTTED THE PLAYER, WHAT MATTER"s IS THE SLOT HE TOOK THE PLAYER? WHAT ABOUT THAT CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND, sorry to get loud, but I can't seem to get through to you any other way, the pick tells us where the GM had that player rated, we don't need to see his draft board, and if that is a round higher then draftniks had him rated, they will most often say the pick was to high or the GM reached for that player, if the pick pans out, the GM found a great player, if not it is a confirmed reach, that you don't seem to agree with this is fine, I'am OK knowing that most fans do.
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 14:53I'm not defending GMs, I am speaking to the truth of the situation.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 14:15of course your defending GM's, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE A gm HAS SLOTTED THE PLAYER, WHAT MATTER"s IS THE SLOT HE TOOK THE PLAYER? WHAT ABOUT THAT CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND, sorry to get loud, but I can't seem to get through to you any other way, the pick tells us where the GM had that player rated, we don't need to see his draft board, and if that is a round higher then draftniks had him rated, they will most often say the pick was to high or the GM reached for that player, if the pick pans out, the GM found a great player, if not it is a confirmed reach, that you don't seem to agree with this is fine, I'am OK knowing that most fans do.
It absolutely matters where GMs slot players just as much as it matters where a GM takes a players. In a true factual reach, a GM will take a player at say 25, when all other GMs have a player "slotted" at 55 or later. However, we will NEVER know if something like that happens because we are not privy to all those draft boards.
It also doesn't matter if the pick pans out in terms of the draftniks deeming the pick a reach or not. That does not come into play when calling it a reach. If a player pans out, he can still be a reach. Again, what a player does after he is drafted does not determine if he is a reach or not on draft day. Where the player is pick in relation to where draftniks think he should be picked determines what the media believes to be a reach. A draft day reach is a reach, no matter what that player does in their career. It makes the reach more understandable in the media's eyes, but it is still a reach.