Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

There are three problems here:

(1) Missing the playoffs by essentially a coin toss is NOT the same as missing it by being 4-12. The difference, as Whodi seems to point out, with these other teams (such as being 12-4) is that a team with a better record has reason to believe that they are in better shape with respect to talent and scheme than a team with a worse record. That is, they don\'t need to make as many moves, adjustments, etc. Thus, not making the playoffs and being 8-8 IS better than being 4-12 WITH RESPECT TO JUDGING THE TALENT LEVEL OF THE TEAM.

(2) Since this is a team game, it is VERY difficult to judge who is responsible for what - in terms of praise or blame. It seems to me NOT at all obvious what role Joe played in our being 8-8 in terms of praise or blame. Thus, I don\'t see that the argument, \"it wouldn\'t matter\" if he left is that obvious. I\'m not saying it isn\'t true, but I don\'t see that our not making the playoffs is evidence for that.

(3) One more time, W-L record is a TEAM stat and not an individual stat. Thus, I don\'t see how making the playoffs, not making the playoffs, being 9-7, 8-8 or any other middling number is evidence that any particular player is good or bad, expendible or inexpendible, etc. In the end, it will have to be a complex balance of factors - on feild performance, stats, general distribution of praise and blame over entire units, teams, and indivdiual players.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

In case you didn\'t notice BnB, the whole team isn\'t 33 years old and screaming for a top 5 contract. :o Maybe you missed that somehow. It\'s all good.

Okay, so explain to me Kool how the opposite is true, that if we keep Joe, it WILL make a difference in us making the playoffs. It\'s not obvious either way that either side is true, but thanks for singling out my point.

Well San Diego was 4-12 and such for YEARS, and they turned that around. So I don\'t see how being 8-8 allows for better talent evaluation than 4-12. I see San Diego having high draft picks for several years finally paying off. But whatever.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

I whole heartedly agree with you on this one Whodi. I don\'t think that it is obvious either way. This argument would be inconclusive for your opponent as well, Whodi.

Here was my point with respect to records and evaluating players. Teams with higher records may say this: given we are a good football team, the likelihood that any player on our team is better than a player on another team is higher. Thus, as you suggest, a player on a team with a good record OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL is more likely to be a better player than a player on another team. For a team with a really bad record, the opposite is true. That is all I had in mind.

I don\'t really see what draft picks or \"turning it around\" have to do with that. Maybe I should have been more clear?

I wasn\'t talking about \"talent evaluation\"; I was talking about evaluating the talent on the team that had the record - not some future team they may or may not become.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

LOL. Do your homework. I live in Chicago.

And you proved my point.... Dat is the anchor of their defense? Horn has been the anchor of our offense...

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Yeah, that Sammy Davis is something else.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

As opposed to Drew Brees, Quentin Jammer, Terrence Kiel and LT? Good call. Keep up the effort though BNB.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Well, I think Deuce is the anchor of our offense, so we disgree there too. Nothing new in this thread.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Okay Kool, you say you weren\'t talking about talent avaluation, then immediately following that you are talking about evaluating the talent on the team that had the record? Huh? Is evaluating the talent not talent evaluation?

But besides that. I still don\'t see where you are going. San D, was 4-12 ot thereabouts for years, then they go 12-4 all of a sudden with pretty much the same team? How would them being 8-8 have given a better evaluation of the talent on the team, as opposed to talent evaluation, I guess.

Look at Dallas. 5-11 the three years before Parcells, they go 10-6 and make the playoffs with pretty much the exact same team. Where does talent evaluation, or evaluating the talent of the team with a 5-11 record differ from an 8-8 team? I don\'t see it.

So still there is no difference between being 4-12 and not making the playoffs, and 8-8 and not making the playoffs, cause teams with records worse than 8-8 have gone to the playoffs with their teams pretty much the same. While out 8-8 team has stayed, well, 8-8. Can you help me out on that one? And explain the difference between talent evaluation, and evaluating the talent on the team with that record? They both have the words \"talent\" and a variation of \"evaluate.\"

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Whodi, I\'m not sure why we\'re having trouble understanding each other here. I thought we were talking about two different things, but it seems we\'re not.

Here is what I meant, and you can tell me what you meant (and where I\'m wrong).

(1) This argument seems ok, even though it doesn\'t guarantee the conclusion:
1. x plays on team y.
2. a plays on team b.
3. Team y has a better record than team b.
Therefore,
4. x is likely a better player than a.

That\'s all I meant. Teams with better records have some reason, though not much, to believe that they have better players on their team.

I thought you thought I meant this: teams with better records are better at evaluating talent of players NOT on their team and bring them in. While this may be true, that wasn\'t what I was trying to talk about.

I also think this is a decent argument:
1. Team x had an 8-8 record.
2. Team y had a 1-15 record.
Therefore,
3. Team x is closer to making the playoffs than team y.
Therefore,
4. Team x needs to make fewer changes than team y to make the playoffs (whether in scheme, personnel, coaching, draft, etc.)

Your examples of Dallas and the Niners are counter-examples to this argument. However, I took this argument to be good in general, surely there will be some exceptions - I agree.

It follows though that if my argument (above) is good in general, that there are different ways to miss the playoffs that make a difference. In an intuitive case, a team that clearly appears to be lacking start players and goes 0-16 IS DIFFERENT from a team that goes 10-6 and misses the playoffs due to the current wild card system. No?

I don\'t remember what this point has to do with anything though.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Kool, I have no idea where we are getting off track, but there seems to be a serious disconnect in what we are both arguing. I will try to narrow the margin.

You seem to be saying that a team with an 8-8 record has a better idea of the talent on their team due to the fact that they are closer to the playoffs? Is that right? I disagree with that and gave two examples as to why.

Another point you seem to be disputing is that a player on a better team at a certain position could be argued to be better than a player on a bad team at the same position. Well, I have not made that statement at all and find it to be incorrect. Before the Eagles got TO, I would consider Joe better than all their receivers combined.

I don\'t believe I said or implied that, so maybe therein lies the confusion.

Here is what I am saying as simple as I can make it. The Saints for 4 years have not made the playoffs with Joe Horn, no matter their record. I fail to see how not having Joe Horn changes that. I also fail to see how 8-8 and not being in the playoffs is somehow better than being 4-12 and not in the playoffs, except the 4-12 teams get better draft picks. Case in point, were we 4-12 and not in the playoffs this year instead of 8-8 and not in the playoffs, we wouldn\'t have to talk about trading up for DJ, or Mike Williams or anyone cause we would have our pick of them. But I digress. Basically I fail to see how it can be reasonably argued in this age of parity that an 8-8 team has a better chance of making the playoffs than even a 5-11 team, where we have proven that false for a number of years.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Ok, that sounded like progress. However, now I\'m confused.

If Joe Horn is better than either of the Eagles WRs (pre-TO), then why not just stop talking about making the playoffs and records? Obviously talent is evaluated quite well independently of records and/or making the playoffs (and I agree).

My point about a player on a team with a better record being judged a better player is an \'other things being equal\' (at least I think I said that) judgement. Thus, if we have a lot of information, we would not use that argument. Say all you knew about a player was the record of the team he played on - you would count that as some evidence of his ability, wouldn\'t you? This is why people get all upity about \"playoff experience\" and the like, I believe.

Either way, I don\'t think this matters very much, but I was wondering if you did - since you seem to be saying you don\'t care about the record of the team but you do care about whether they made the playoffs (which clearly has to do with a team\'s record). I was just trying to determine what \"not making the playoffs\" had to do with evaluating Joe Horn\'s ability to help us make the playoffs. Certainly his abilities are the kind of things that would help, right? If you say no, then I\'m confused - since if Joe were to have gone to the Eagles (instead of TO) he would have helped them make the playoffs, since he would have been better than either of their other two, right?

Notice that both my arguments were intended to be general arguments. I acknowledge your counter-examples (just as I did before), but we\'d need to show that my arguments (actually, I\'m really only interested in the second one) don\'t hold in most cases (in general) to show that they are wrong.

Your second argument seems to me to be this: a team that has a worse record has better means of getting at least one player they need (as they have a higher draft pick).

I agree with that. Of course, a team with a bad record is more likely to need far more than just one player (unlike a team with a higher record - e.g. a 10-6 team that didn\'t make the playoffs because of the wild card system, that may very well not need any new players to make the playoffs). That is the sense in which, in general, a team with a better record is in better shape than a team with a worse record - even if they don\'t make the playoffs.

Why is this last point relevant? Well, if Joe is part of what is helping us be 8-8, then he is a good part of the team. (That is, if without him we would be 6-10, then we are better off with him than without, even if we don\'t make the playoffs.) Of course, it is possible that he is holding us back from making the playoffs, but I don\'t see an argument for that. More or less, we don\'t need a #1 WR while we have Joe, we have one.

I\'m not suggesting that someone else might not help us more than Joe, but I\'m just having trouble understanding why I should think that he is expendable on the grounds that we haven\'t made the playoffs while he\'s been a Saint.

Also, if you think, in general (rather than in rare cases), that it is possible for teams to suddenly make the playoffs with almost no personel changes, why are you interested in changing our personel? Surely, we could be like Dallas? I\'m sure you didn\'t mean the point this way, so I was hoping you could tell me what you meant here.

Further, I agree with you that our not improving from 8-8 is odd (and altogether frustrating). My explanation is that we haven\'t found the missing pieces in any given year (one year we need a CB badly, another a DT, another a LB). But, I don\'t think that being 8-8 is some sort of curse - in fact, I believe it shows that we are only a player or two (or a good coach or two) away from making the playoffs. I don\'t see how if we\'d been 1-15 every year I could believe the that we only a few moves away.

Maybe we\'re just talking about different things? Interesting still, no?

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

It\'s very interesting Kool. I am in agreement with that. ;)


But that\'s not all we know about players, so I can\'t ever in any instance make that assumption. We all know much more than just thta nout players, so it\'s a criteria that would ask me to ignore facts that I know, which I think makes it faulty criteria or a faulty assumption. Not that it can\'t be argued, just that makes it faulty to me.

This is untrue cause the Eagles not only made the playoffs but the NFC Champ game before TO, which in this instance would have been before Joe. Joe would then have very little to do with them being in the playoffs. I don\'t see how that can be argued either. Also to say Joe would help us make the playoffs is inconclusive, cause for 4 years he hasn\'t. I can also name a bunch of guys who AREN\'T here that helped us get to the playoffs as much if not more than Joe did 5 years ago. So I still can\'t see he would help us make the playoffs can be made into an argument since we don\'t.



Hence the discussions of trying to get someone else to fill in. We are not in the playoffs with Joe as our number one, surely it can\'t hurt to get someone else as a number one AND not having to pay Joe.

Yeah you could say that, but 5 years ago we were 10-6 and in the playoffs, then 9-7. Now 1 year out of the playoffs and then 9-7, you would think we had a good shot at the playoffs, no? Well, no is right. 7-9, then 8-8, then 8-8 and we still don\'t look like a playoff team. And with mediocre draft picks. So basically you are saying you don\'t reasonable see how if we were in a position the past few years to draft a LT or Vick in 2001 or a David Carr or Julius Peppers in 2002 or a Carson Palmer or Andre johnson Terence Newman in 2003 or an Eli, or Gallery or Sean Taylor in 2004 or a Mike Williams or DJ this year, well I will just disagree. Carolina was 1-15 a few years back, got to draft Peppers and they were pretty good afterwards. Same with Atlanta and Vick, same with San D and LT. Same with the Texans with Carr and Johnson. MAtter of fact, the expansion Texans now had the same win loss record as us last year in a MUCH tougher division. I think 8-8 has hurt us more than it has ever helped us be close to the playoffs. But to each his own.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

(1) I agree with this. I was merely trying to come up with something that would help me understand why W-L record might matter when we were talking about a particular player. I\'m coming to the view that it matters little, if at all.

(2) I agree wholeheartedly with this one. It is very unclear to me why people seem to think that W-L records can be easily translated into evaluations of players and vice versa.

(3) Ok, you lost me here. You mean some guys, like Jeff Blake say, made a bigger difference in our making the playoffs that year than Joe, right? I\'m not sure why you\'re so sure of that, but I\'m open minded on this point.

(4) I knew you were investigating alternatives to Joe, so my point wasn\'t about that - it was merely that if Joe is any good, then he could be a piece of the puzzle. I have no problem with a replacement. It also seems to me that Joe isn\'t going to cost us as much (in fact, he may even reduce our cap number this year by taking a longer contract) as I first thought.

(5) I\'m not sure we\'re talking about the same thing when it comes to your last point. My point was that a team with a middling record seems to need only one or only a few guys. You seem to be agreeing, noting some players that could have helped us greately if we\'d gotten even just one of them. I\'m not sure what you are getting at here - or that we even disagree.

I was never suggesting that being 8-8 helped us; I was suggesting that it tells us something about how we are doing (see the second argument in my earlier post). You seemed to be suggesting that any record that doesn\'t get you into the playoffs doesn\'t tell you anything about how the team and its players are doing (since you seemed to think that having Joe is neither here nor there because we don\'t make the playoffs). I was merely arguing that that isn\'t a way to evaluate Joe. Maybe I was/am just missing the point? I can\'t tell.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

That last point is interesting, and I think it shows where you are missing me. I am not using win/loss to evaluate Joe, I am using win/loss to evaluate the TEAM as a whole, Joe just happens to be the part we are talking about now. In that part, I wouldn\'t overpay to keep ANYONE on a team that doesn\'t even make the playoffs. I would not mind at all keeping certain players at fair contracts, but to me, noone is indispensible. That\'s not knocking Joe or anyone in particular, that is a knock of the team. My arguments on Joe were based on him saying he wants a top 5 contract, and was willing to hold out. To me that was pretty ballsy when you are on a non-playoff team, and I am of the attitude we could miss the playoffs just fine without you Joe. It has recently come to light Joe has had a change of heart, that doesn\'t change the argument though cause the argument started BEFORE the change of heart. If we can get Joe in on a reasonable deal, I am all for it, and have said so numerous times. Unless you are THE BEST in the league at any position, which noone on our team can claim to be, I did not and do not think it\'s in the team\'s bets interest to overpay, for ANYONE.

So again, not making the playoffs is an evaluation of the TEAM, and my main reason not to OVERPAY for Joe. Since that may no longer be the case(overpaying), then I really have no reason to go on. It was valid at one time but now isn\'t due to recent reports on Joe.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Ah, ha!

We agree on this:

However, I don\'t think overpaying anyone is ever a good idea (and I\'m willing to bet you agree).

I don\'t think it is good to overpay even the best players (though I\'m not sure how you would determine who is the best player at any given position either way). Look at the Colts - pay Harrison, pay Manning, can\'t pay James. I\'m not sure any of those guys are THE BEST at their positions, though an argument could be made, but when it comes to paying guys, overpaying is always bad.

However, I don\'t see what any of that has to do with missing the playoffs or even the team record. Would you be willing to overpay Joe if we were a playoff team every years since he\'s been here? My guess is that you\'ll agree with me and say \"no.\"

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

If we were going to the playoffs and Joe was going to the pro bowl, I would be slightly more willing to overpay for him than I am now. I don\'t mean sink into ruin for the team, but definitely willing to take on a few more dollars. The Eagles overpaid for Owens and Kearse, but that helped them get over the hump of not getting to the Superbowl. If we were in the playoffs, I would be more inclined to believe a key player in that should be entitled to compensation maybe above the norm. But not at all when you can\'t go once in 4 years.

Also, Peyton is considered the best QB in the league, and Harrison if not one, number two. James may be considered the 5th best back or lower, depending. So they still fit into what I am saying. PLUS, they are a playoff team who wouldn\'t even get close if they didn\'t have Manning, so I can see the sense in what they did.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Effort? Keep being an ass, and I can keep going for as long as you want.
So, I should be impressed by a team that drafts a few guys that turn around a decent year, who by the way were being questioned about this time a year ago, only to see a first round exit from the playoffs. Bravo, I guess that\'s something.

[Edited on 21/3/2005 by BlackandBlue]

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

As opposed to a team that drafts in the middle rounds every year and never goes to the playoffs? Yeah. :o


[Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

[Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

At least Horn has won a playoff game. ;)

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Damn you missed my smart ass edit. Here it goes.

Or are you saying you would rather pick in the middle of the 1st round for 4 straight years and not make the playoffs in any, or pick high for 4 but in that 4th one finally make the playoffs? I guess I can see that logic. Showed me. I guess no progress is more impressive than some progress. 4-12 tp 12-4 in a tougher conference or 8-8 to 8-8 in the weakest conference in years? Tough one there.

Also, didn\'t Randall Cunningham win a playoff game like 5 years ago too? Maybe we should sign him. :o

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Heh hehh heheh, here\'s the thing, I agreed with you in this thread, yet you still come after me. I hate to see how you treat your close friends.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

You agreed with me early on, heck we both agreed. I thought we were having some fun here. I still consider you a bud. :patos:

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

OK....a few things here. (And I\'ll try not to get you going whodi.)

I think Kool was saying with regard to Horn and the playoffs and being 8-8: If you have a solid performer at a certain position and there are other needs to address (which there are) AND you can get the guy at something resembling market value....you keep the guy and attempt to address your other needs. With Horn....I think we all know we have a solid receiver who comes to play and runs his mouth too much. I think Horn is the least of our problems and that\'s why I\'ve been amazed at all the dialogue of late.
Last year\'s problems:
Run D (not addressed)
Pass D (hopefully getting better)
Pass blocking (ditto)
LB (not addressed)
Safety (gotta think we\'re better)
Run Blocking (Mayberry....my saviour? I hope)
Mike McCarthy (gone...hopefully better now)

None of these problems has to do with Horn. So, why should his name come up when the \"why we missed the playoffs\" argument ensues? If anything, he made every play he was called on to make down the stretch.

Look at Plax\'s contract and tell Joe Horn he\'s crazy for wanting more money. I don\'t approve of him calling out the GM, but man....put yourself in his shoes and see how you would feel if a guy who can double his catches AND add twenty to reach what you put up the year before gets that kind of cheese. It\'s human nature to notice that kind of stuff.


Another thing....I\'ve never understood people who want the team to do poorly to help out in the draft. I\'m a Saints fan, I root for them every Sunday. I\'ll take 8-8 any day over 4-12. Truth be told, we got hosed out of the playoffs with some fuzzy tiebreaker garbage.

Also, is 4-12 really a guarantee of improvement? Especially with these guys running a draft board. Talk to the cards, bengals, and browns about getting better by being bad. Quality picks can be made in the middle of the 1st as well. That\'s more a product of solid scouting and drafting than it is being bad the year before. Look the LA Clippers.....in the lottery every year and they just keep on sucking.

Now....I agree that 8-8 doesn\'t always mean that you\'re close with personnel being what it is. You can lose a couple of key guys and make a bad FA signing and go in the tank fast. On the flip side, every year there are a couple of teams that have a huge improvement over the year before. This year the Falcons and Chargers went up while the Chiefs,Titans, and Cowboys went down. Count on this....there will be bigtime risers and fallers in \'05 and there will be those that stay the same.
(The chargers did NOT have the same team in \'04. Antonio Gates came out of nowhere and Drew Brees came into his own, making LT even more effective)

As usual, the Saints are a special case. You will be hard pressed to find a team that keeps their record so close to the same year in and year out over the last few. In hindsight, would I have preferred to go to the playoffs every other year for the last few, misxing in a couple of 5-11\'s? Yes...looking back I would.
The problem with this team is that consistent mediocrity in the NFL is almost as hard to achieve as consistent greatness. That\'s what makes some Saints fans even more frustrated. We have been 1-2 plays away from the playoffs for too long now. It makes you think that a nice LB, safety,OT...whatever will get you to the tourney. Problem is.....it may require a new braintrust.
I firmly believe that there are a couple of coaches who would have had these players in the playoffs at least 3 out of the last 5 years....but I digress.

Relating individual players to the playoffs doesn\'t always work.
Look at Ben.....how many weeks in a row did we hear what a winner he was? (and I like ben) Would we have heard that if Ben had our D? No. It would have been \"this rookie is striggling\". He got praise for being a winner when in reality he was on a run friendly team with a nasty D. I think AB would have taken that team to the playoffs as well.
Brees and Vick? They can take some credit for their team\'s success. Sadly, the QB is usually the diffence maker, unless you have a top 5 D, then you just ask the QB not to screw up.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

yasoon, I was gonna make a long drawn out reply, but why bother. I\'ll hit a few points.

The original point was Horn demanded a top 5 contract and said he would hold out, which is not market value. I also explained how his change of heart changed my opinion.

His name never came up in any \"Why we missed the playoffs\" debates from me. His name came up in a we can miss the playoffs without him just like we miss them with him when he demanded a top 5 contract. Goes back to that.

Um, were Gates and Brees on the team last year? Then it was the same team. Some players on the SAME TEAM showed vast improvement. SO yes it was the same team.

Agree whole-heartedly.



[Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

[Edited on 21/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Isn\'t that kinda the same thing though? The underlying inference is that Joe Horn will not help this team go to the playoffs. You\'re equating the non-playoff saints to the Saints with Joe Horn. Did he catch a 4th Qtr TD in 3 of the last 4 games? Were 2 of those game winners? Yes. Horn did everything he possibly could to get this team in this year. He was our most consistent performer all year. He could very well be a key ingredient to getting us there next year.

You\'ve taken this top five thing too literally. Is plax a top 5 receiver? He\'ll make more than Horn the next 2 years. Unless I have the numbers wrong.

Same people, totally different team. Did you think I didn\'t know they were in the league the year before? No NFL team is the SAME from one year to the next in the salary cap era. That was my point. Many changes in a team\'s performance are relative to things that happen behind the scenes and the environment being right.
You need to tone it down a bit. You\'re a little quick to jump all over people. Soften it up a bit. I can sling insults and act condescending with the best of em. That\'s not why I\'m here.

And I agreed with you on your 8-8 being closer than 4-12 point. The difference between winning and losing is so tight in this league that a 4 plays can literally be the difference between 4-12 and 8-8. However, I like to win, so I would rather have 8 than 4 and hope my team can get over the hump without the benefit of 10 draft positions. I mean, look at our last #6 pick...why would I want another one of those?

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

every player should be paid on what they produce. the only problem with that is that i dont think teams want to pay more to someone because they produced more then they thought they could. the reality is that if players are paid based on thier production the team is going to have to pay more money because players they signed for low contracts will need more money if they play well. if you want it one way you have to have it both ways

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

No it\'s not kinda even close to the same thing. You are trying to make it the same thing to fit your argument. It\'s not what I meant or said and I expressed that.

So when a players says \"I want a top 5 contract and I will hold out to get it,\" I shouldn\'t take that literally? How can that be taken too literally when he SAID it. And what does Plax have to do with anything? He doesn\'t play for us. I don\'t care how much more money he gets than Joe Horn, that ain\'t gonna determine how much I would wanna pay JOE HORN.

How did I jump all over you? By pointing out these were the SAME PLAYERS playing for the SAME TEAM? They didn\'t change coaches, owners, GMs, starting QB starting RB, NOTHING. They are were the same team with great improvement from their players. They made no changes to any key position whatsoever. Why do you wanna argue this point anyway? Seems like you are just looking for reasons to argue, maybe that\'s why the answer was curt? Improvement by the same players on the same team doesn\'t make them a new team, it makes them the same team with improvements.

Yeah, the Chargers picked Ryan Leaf, whatsoever were they thinking even trying with those high draft picks again. They shoulda packed it in and told the league, hey we don\'t wanna try anymore cause we picked a dud in leaf. Give our pick to someone else. Come on dude. The draft is a crap shoot for anyone. I would rather take my chances crap shooting top 5 than late teens if I am not gonna be in the playoffs anyway. You make it seem like we are the only team to ever pick a dud early, doesn\'t mean you stop hoping to land a gem.