what a bad draft pick

VooDoo · 05-17-2005, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by ScottyRo

You've got to weigh the risk of the pick against the potential value and factor in the price. McPherson as a 5th round pick is not that expensive. He has issues in his past, but hasn't done anything wrong in a while (low risk). His value on the other hand can be huge. I think he's well worth it.

Lyman is similar, but much more risky. He was only a 4th round pick - not terribly expensive. However, he had injury problems his entire college career - that's high risk. His potential value is hard to ascertain. Would ha have been anything more than a backup? As injury prone as he is it seems unlikely that he could have, but who knows?

It seems that the majority of the teams in the NFL didn't agree with your assessment, Scotty. What round was McPhearson drafted in?

Why? Because any team that drafted him was taking a HUGE risk. You've got young kids coming into the NFL who have never had much money. You put a guy like McPhearson around vulnerable guys and it's risky.

It's not only McPhearson you have to worry about. Just the same, I don't care how much upside he has, I would have passed on the guy. Character is more important to me than some of you, I suppose.

JKool · 05-17-2005, 12:54 PM

Picks 1, 2, and 3 for us this year were safe. 4 and 5 were gambles. 6 and 7 were for need. One of our gambles didn't pay off. That sucks, but at least we've still got 6 other guys who may make significant contributions.

I don't see how you can be down on Lyman and high on McPhereson AS A DRAFT PICK. Lyman was known for injuries. He got injured. Yup, I agree, that didn't work out the way we would have liked. Would I have picked him? Hell no. McPherson is known for off the field troubles. He has not faltered yet. Good so far. Was Lyman a bad pick because he was a gamble? No (unless you the McPherson was a bad pick). Was he a bad pick because he got hurt? No (unless you think that Winslow was a bad pick). Was he a bad pick because he was known for injuries? Yes (unless you think that any gambling on a player with a big upside is a bad idea).

papz · 05-17-2005, 01:01 PM

Good post J. I couldn't have put it any better... except I would have pick him... (later though instead of at all)

JKool · 05-17-2005, 01:02 PM

Thought I'd help ya out papz. The sharks were circling!

papz · 05-17-2005, 01:09 PM

He's more like a puppy

at sw. :P

JKool · 05-17-2005, 01:55 PM

True enough! :P

saintswhodi · 05-17-2005, 02:13 PM

What? When did this become communist Russia? :P So becuase you like the McPherson pick you HAVE to like the Lyman pick? Where is that BS flag when you need it? Lyman had an INJURY history. there is no therapy for an INJURY history. There is therapy fro CHARACTER issues, which McPherson had. If he gambles his paycheck away at Harrah's, Houston we have a problem. As far as I know, he has been clean since the incident happened. Is that correct or no? Lyman on the other hand has ALWAYS been inured. ALWAYS. Every year, every season. ALWAYS. Anyone see any reports of McPherson gambling last year? Year before? Or was it ONLY at FSU, and is it still not proven to be TRUE? He never admitted to it, although he readily admitted he stole a check. Is it TRUE that LYman has been hurt EVERY YEAR, and was hurt LAST YEAR? You do not HAVE to like the Lyman pick cause you liked McPherson. And can anyone dig me up an injury history on Winslow at Miami? Not even the same thing. He broke a leg on special teams(fluke) and got hurt on a motorcycle. How in the world does that compare to getting hurt every season in college? Just a bad comparison.

JKool · 05-17-2005, 02:20 PM

I agree that Lyman was a bad pick because of the injuries.

However, as a gamble pick I don't see the difference from McPherson. Certainly, the gamble taken was different (one was on injuries, the other was on character). However, I don't see how you can take a gamble to be bad on injuries to be bad and not a gamble on character?

Whodi, your idea appears to be that McPherson was not a gamble at all. If that is true, then the analogy fails. If he was a gamble, my point stands - either you think it is ok to gamble or you don't. I suggested that McPherson was a gamble, as was Lyman. The Lyman gamble didn't payoff, so you can criticize that. However, it cannot be criticized on the grounds that it was a gamble alone, without criticizing the McPherson pick (unless you are right and he wasn't a gamble).

1. I'm glad the BS flag is gone, it was just annoying. The dancing broccoli on the other hand was a work of genius.
2. According to some new posters, this has always been Communist Russia...

saintswhodi · 05-17-2005, 02:32 PM

The difference Kool is Lyman was a gamble in ANY round. With that many injuries, he should've been undrafted. McPherson on the other hand, were it not for those character issues, would have been a first or second round pick. One is a smart gamble, the other was a dumb gamble. Especially, like papz said, when we could have taken Hawthorne or Boley, or if we had to get a receiver, Roydell Williams. In the 5th round, McPherson was the most talented player available, good gamble. In the 4th, Lyman was not, bad gamble. So there are different types of gambles. If I know a horse comes from a good line of winners, is fed right and well taken care of, and that horse just lost his last race, I might still take a bet on him to do well in the current race at 5-2 odds. That's a good gamble. On the other hand, if another horse was one race from the glue factory, has never won a race, has questionable breeding, and repeatedly has to have his knee repaired, it is safe to you would not bet on that horse. That would be a bad gamble. Well, Lyman ain't no Giacomo(although I don't know if he was close to the glue factory or such, but Lyman should have been). :P

JKool · 05-17-2005, 02:50 PM

I'm not sure one can tell the difference between a good gamble and a bad gamble before the gamble is made. It is easy to say that Lyman was a bad gamble now that he has been injured.

I suppose, I agree that one could use the BPA argument (which I believe you are suggesting) to determine which are good or bad gambles. I'm a bit unclear on how that would work. You are correct though, there must be degrees of gamble. Perhaps Lyman's degree of risk was higher and that is what made him a bad gamble. I guess, I'm just a bit wary of such an analysis so far. Good suggestion though.

05-17-2005, 12:40 PM	#21
VooDoo Rookie Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 25	Originally Posted by ScottyRo You've got to weigh the risk of the pick against the potential value and factor in the price. McPherson as a 5th round pick is not that expensive. He has issues in his past, but hasn't done anything wrong in a while (low risk). His value on the other hand can be huge. I think he's well worth it. Lyman is similar, but much more risky. He was only a 4th round pick - not terribly expensive. However, he had injury problems his entire college career - that's high risk. His potential value is hard to ascertain. Would ha have been anything more than a backup? As injury prone as he is it seems unlikely that he could have, but who knows? It seems that the majority of the teams in the NFL didn't agree with your assessment, Scotty. What round was McPhearson drafted in? Why? Because any team that drafted him was taking a HUGE risk. You've got young kids coming into the NFL who have never had much money. You put a guy like McPhearson around vulnerable guys and it's risky. It's not only McPhearson you have to worry about. Just the same, I don't care how much upside he has, I would have passed on the guy. Character is more important to me than some of you, I suppose.
VooDoo Rookie Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 25

05-17-2005, 12:54 PM	#22
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Picks 1, 2, and 3 for us this year were safe. 4 and 5 were gambles. 6 and 7 were for need. One of our gambles didn't pay off. That sucks, but at least we've still got 6 other guys who may make significant contributions. I don't see how you can be down on Lyman and high on McPhereson AS A DRAFT PICK. Lyman was known for injuries. He got injured. Yup, I agree, that didn't work out the way we would have liked. Would I have picked him? Hell no. McPherson is known for off the field troubles. He has not faltered yet. Good so far. Was Lyman a bad pick because he was a gamble? No (unless you the McPherson was a bad pick). Was he a bad pick because he got hurt? No (unless you think that Winslow was a bad pick). Was he a bad pick because he was known for injuries? Yes (unless you think that any gambling on a player with a big upside is a bad idea).
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-17-2005, 02:20 PM	#28
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	I agree that Lyman was a bad pick because of the injuries. However, as a gamble pick I don't see the difference from McPherson. Certainly, the gamble taken was different (one was on injuries, the other was on character). However, I don't see how you can take a gamble to be bad on injuries to be bad and not a gamble on character? Whodi, your idea appears to be that McPherson was not a gamble at all. If that is true, then the analogy fails. If he was a gamble, my point stands - either you think it is ok to gamble or you don't. I suggested that McPherson was a gamble, as was Lyman. The Lyman gamble didn't payoff, so you can criticize that. However, it cannot be criticized on the grounds that it was a gamble alone, without criticizing the McPherson pick (unless you are right and he wasn't a gamble). 1. I'm glad the BS flag is gone, it was just annoying. The dancing broccoli on the other hand was a work of genius. 2. According to some new posters, this has always been Communist Russia...
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-17-2005, 02:50 PM	#30
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	I'm not sure one can tell the difference between a good gamble and a bad gamble before the gamble is made. It is easy to say that Lyman was a bad gamble now that he has been injured. I suppose, I agree that one could use the BPA argument (which I believe you are suggesting) to determine which are good or bad gambles. I'm a bit unclear on how that would work. You are correct though, there must be degrees of gamble. Perhaps Lyman's degree of risk was higher and that is what made him a bad gamble. I guess, I'm just a bit wary of such an analysis so far. Good suggestion though.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

05-17-2005, 01:01 PM	#23
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,681	Good post J. I couldn't have put it any better... except I would have pick him... (later though instead of at all)

05-17-2005, 01:02 PM	#24
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Thought I'd help ya out papz. The sharks were circling!

05-17-2005, 01:09 PM	#25
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,681	He's more like a puppy at sw. :P

05-17-2005, 01:55 PM	#26
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	True enough! :P

05-17-2005, 02:13 PM	#27
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	What? When did this become communist Russia? :P So becuase you like the McPherson pick you HAVE to like the Lyman pick? Where is that BS flag when you need it? Lyman had an INJURY history. there is no therapy for an INJURY history. There is therapy fro CHARACTER issues, which McPherson had. If he gambles his paycheck away at Harrah's, Houston we have a problem. As far as I know, he has been clean since the incident happened. Is that correct or no? Lyman on the other hand has ALWAYS been inured. ALWAYS. Every year, every season. ALWAYS. Anyone see any reports of McPherson gambling last year? Year before? Or was it ONLY at FSU, and is it still not proven to be TRUE? He never admitted to it, although he readily admitted he stole a check. Is it TRUE that LYman has been hurt EVERY YEAR, and was hurt LAST YEAR? You do not HAVE to like the Lyman pick cause you liked McPherson. And can anyone dig me up an injury history on Winslow at Miami? Not even the same thing. He broke a leg on special teams(fluke) and got hurt on a motorcycle. How in the world does that compare to getting hurt every season in college? Just a bad comparison.

05-17-2005, 02:32 PM	#29
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	The difference Kool is Lyman was a gamble in ANY round. With that many injuries, he should've been undrafted. McPherson on the other hand, were it not for those character issues, would have been a first or second round pick. One is a smart gamble, the other was a dumb gamble. Especially, like papz said, when we could have taken Hawthorne or Boley, or if we had to get a receiver, Roydell Williams. In the 5th round, McPherson was the most talented player available, good gamble. In the 4th, Lyman was not, bad gamble. So there are different types of gambles. If I know a horse comes from a good line of winners, is fed right and well taken care of, and that horse just lost his last race, I might still take a bet on him to do well in the current race at 5-2 odds. That's a good gamble. On the other hand, if another horse was one race from the glue factory, has never won a race, has questionable breeding, and repeatedly has to have his knee repaired, it is safe to you would not bet on that horse. That would be a bad gamble. Well, Lyman ain't no Giacomo(although I don't know if he was close to the glue factory or such, but Lyman should have been). :P