Xs&Os - Explanation time on Geno

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

but that's not a flaw.
that is part of the system. no one said Geno wasn't talented just that it would take a lot of work to get him to where he needs.
Burfict showed talent very early in his ASU career but he showed such a disregard for football and the draft process no one was sure enough if he would even care enough again to play.

Seems to be flawed to me because if you can't truly measure someone how can you determine who goes here or there accurately?

[BengalzHacker]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

Seems to be flawed to me because if you can't truly measure someone how can you determine who goes here or there accurately?

The flaws you speak of in this debate are of heart, discipline, desire and chance. None of which can anyone actually quantify. In the absence of quantifiable evidence, one can only speculate based on past performance. Mayock said Burfict wasn't draftable, not that he would never amount to anything. Fact is, he was NOT drafted thus Mayock was right. If no one drafted him, they saw him as not draftable as well.

Just because the light unexpectedly comes on for someone doesn't mean the people making there assessments did anything wrong. Nor that they were incorrect when the very thing predicted actually happened. Predictions are just that predictions. They aren't called definitives.

[alleyviper13]

In on 7th page!

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

but that's not a flaw.
that is part of the system. no one said Geno wasn't talented just that it would take a lot of work to get him to where he needs.
Burfict showed talent very early in his ASU career but he showed such a disregard for football and the draft process no one was sure enough if he would even care enough again to play.

But the system is flawed. That's not to say it should be thrown out or not trusted because the flaw is as much a part of it as anything else. There's no single measurable that will guarantee a player will succeed or fail. You can only judge if the reward part of risk/reward is great enough to take a chance. And you can only make that judgment based on what a player has shown up to the point you're ready to draft or sign him.

I don't agree that a player is undraftable simply based on cases like Burfict's. There are too many intangibles in play to guarantee something one way or another. I do agree that everything pointed towards drafting or even signing him would be a mistake based on his past.

Mayock or anyone else is definitely wrong to say any player-- that has experience and is physically gifted enough to play in the NFL-- is undraftable because of what i stated before, intangibles. He would have been more on the mark to say drafting him would be a big mistake or that the risk was too great to take a chance on him because of everything he had shown up to draft day.

This whole argument is more a matter of perception than anything. Not on the player but on the words used. Flaw and undraftable. Two sides looking at the same words and seeing them from different sides. The flaw in the system, without the benefit of hind-sight, is unavoidable and the system itself, with that flaw, is the only way currently to measure players. And saying someone is undraftable is proven to be wrong every time someone like Burfict makes it.

So, the system is flawed but there is no way to measure a player without that flaw always being there. Conversely, without the benefit of hind-sight, you can't say the system doesn't work because of the flaw since there is no other way to do it.

omg....sorry about the rambling but it's 3:10am and i just woke up from a nap...

[BengalzHacker]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

But the system is flawed. That's not to say it should be thrown out or not trusted because the flaw is as much a part of it as anything else. There's no single measurable that will guarantee a player will succeed or fail. You can only judge if the reward part of risk/reward is great enough to take a chance. And you can only make that judgment based on what a player has shown up to the point you're ready to draft or sign him.

I don't agree that a player is undraftable simply based on cases like Burfict's. There are too many intangibles in play to guarantee something one way or another. I do agree that everything pointed towards drafting or even signing him would be a mistake based on his past.

Mayock or anyone else is definitely wrong to say any player-- that has experience and is physically gifted enough to play in the NFL-- is undraftable because of what i stated before, intangibles. He would have been more on the mark to say drafting him would be a big mistake or that the risk was too great to take a chance on him because of everything he had shown up to draft day.

This whole argument is more a matter of perception than anything. Not on the player but on the words used. Flaw and undraftable. Two sides looking at the same words and seeing them from different sides. The flaw in the system, without the benefit of hind-sight, is unavoidable and the system itself, with that flaw, is the only way currently to measure players. And saying someone is undraftable is proven to be wrong every time someone like Burfict makes it.

So, the system is flawed but there is no way to measure a player without that flaw always being there. Conversely, without the benefit of hind-sight, you can't say the system doesn't work because of the flaw since there is no other way to do it.

omg....sorry about the rambling but it's 3:10am and i just woke up from a nap...

No one is arguing that there are no flaws per se, the arguement is really whether or not Mayock was wrong when he said Burfict was undraftable.

Mayock said he was undraftable, not that he didn't have skills, not that he couldn't play, not that he didn't have talent, not that he lost a leg, just that his antics throughout the course of his Sr. season in college had made him undraftable.

He went undrafted. Thus Mayock was NOT wrong.

The otherside is arguing that because he was picked up as an UDFA and he's playing and contribuitng that Mayock was wrong, yet that's impossible as Mayock prediction was accurate as Burfict went undrafted. Had Mayock said he had no talent, was washed up, couldn't play, well then he'd have been wrong, but he didn't. Thus Mayock was NOT wrong. He was in fact RIGHT.

That's the real arguement here.

[rfaulk34]

Originally Posted by BengalzHacker

No one is arguing that there are no flaws per se, the arguement is really whether or not Mayock was wrong when he said Burfict was undraftable.

Mayock said he was undraftable, not that he didn't have skills, not that he couldn't play, not that he didn't have talent, not that he lost a leg, just that his antics throughout the course of his Sr. season in college had made him undraftable.

He went undrafted. Thus Mayock was NOT wrong.

The otherside is arguing that because he was picked up as an UDFA and he's playing and contribuitng that Mayock was wrong, yet that's impossible as Mayock prediction was accurate as Burfict went undrafted. Had Mayock said he had no talent, was washed up, couldn't play, well then he'd have been wrong, but he didn't. Thus Mayock was NOT wrong. He was in fact RIGHT.

That's the real arguement here.

He wasn't wrong about Burfict when he said it other than saying he was undraftable. The only way he'd be undraftable is if he didn't have the size, talent or required limbs to play the game at a competitive level. Undraftable is pretty cut and dried. Shouldn't be drafted give you room to wiggle.

But i've never argued against Mayock being correct about Burficts possibilities coming into the draft. Burfict was just able to get his act together and make something of his career.

EDIT: I guess i should clarify. Mayock could say Burfict is undraftable based on the most likely return on your investment. There's a couple ways to look at it as i said before and if you look at it from that perspective, he's certainly right.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by BengalzHacker

The flaws you speak of in this debate are of heart, discipline, desire and chance. None of which can anyone actually quantify. In the absence of quantifiable evidence, one can only speculate based on past performance. Mayock said Burfict wasn't draftable, not that he would never amount to anything. Fact is, he was NOT drafted thus Mayock was right. If no one drafted him, they saw him as not draftable as well.

Just because the light unexpectedly comes on for someone doesn't mean the people making there assessments did anything wrong. Nor that they were incorrect when the very thing predicted actually happened. Predictions are just that predictions. They aren't called definitives.

You guys are argueing Burfict I've moved on past that subject. X's brought up a very valid point that you guys are over looking because of Burfict. If a system dictates someone should be a first round draft pick they get out played by a later round pick the system is flawed.... There is no way around that.

You brought up heart, desire, and discipline those are the things that unqualified Burfict so how then can you say they can't be measured. You guys defending this flawed process are making my case because your focusing on one guy when the problem is much bigger.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by rfaulk34

But the system is flawed. That's not to say it should be thrown out or not trusted because the flaw is as much a part of it as anything else. There's no single measurable that will guarantee a player will succeed or fail. You can only judge if the reward part of risk/reward is great enough to take a chance. And you can only make that judgment based on what a player has shown up to the point you're ready to draft or sign him.

I don't agree that a player is undraftable simply based on cases like Burfict's. There are too many intangibles in play to guarantee something one way or another. I do agree that everything pointed towards drafting or even signing him would be a mistake based on his past.

Mayock or anyone else is definitely wrong to say any player-- that has experience and is physically gifted enough to play in the NFL-- is undraftable because of what i stated before, intangibles. He would have been more on the mark to say drafting him would be a big mistake or that the risk was too great to take a chance on him because of everything he had shown up to draft day.

This whole argument is more a matter of perception than anything. Not on the player but on the words used. Flaw and undraftable. Two sides looking at the same words and seeing them from different sides. The flaw in the system, without the benefit of hind-sight, is unavoidable and the system itself, with that flaw, is the only way currently to measure players. And saying someone is undraftable is proven to be wrong every time someone like Burfict makes it.

So, the system is flawed but there is no way to measure a player without that flaw always being there. Conversely, without the benefit of hind-sight, you can't say the system doesn't work because of the flaw since there is no other way to do it.

omg....sorry about the rambling but it's 3:10am and i just woke up from a nap...

Lol but you hit the nail on the head.👍