Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Kiper 2005 Re-draft « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#15 : January 28, 2011, 09:29:58 AM

1996 the Bucs took Regan Upshaw with their first pick.   They could have taken the 3rd rated Running back in that draft rather than Upshaw.   That back was Eddie George.   I don't think you would find many people who think Regan Upshaw was a better pro than Eddie George.

Quick check. Upshaw wasn't taken in the top 5.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27579
Online
#16 : January 28, 2011, 09:31:18 AM

Taking the third running back at #14 is different than #5.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

JDog

User is on moderator watch listWatched
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2571
Offline
#17 : January 28, 2011, 09:57:58 AM

1996 the Bucs took Regan Upshaw with their first pick.   They could have taken the 3rd rated Running back in that draft rather than Upshaw.   That back was Eddie George.   I don't think you would find many people who think Regan Upshaw was a better pro than Eddie George.

Quick check. Upshaw wasn't taken in the top 5.

Quick check.   No duh.   

That scenario has only happened once in the history of the NFL where 3 rbs were taken in the top 5.   

Doesn't mean it's wrong to take the 3rd best RB though just because top 5.   You pick based on the talent coming out that particular season.

One guy said never take a RB in top 5 at all.   I don't agree.

Another said don't take the 3rd RB in the draft in top 5.   But I gave the example of Eddie George being the 3rd rated RB and he would have been a better pick than Upshaw.   And that is a fact.

To say you should NEVER take the 3rd rated RB in the top 5 is ridiculous.

And the fact that Caddy was rookie of the year in 2005 validates that pick at least to some extent.   No way does that 2005 team make the playoffs without Caddy.

All fact.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31581
Online
#18 : January 28, 2011, 09:58:38 AM

So you wouldn't have taken Adrian Peterson at #5 the year he came out?

LMAO @ trying to compare Carnell Williams to Adrian Peterson.


dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#19 : January 28, 2011, 10:00:53 AM

Everyone likes to bash the Caddy pick but it wasn't a bad pick at the time, heck he won rookie of the year and helped get us to the playoffs. And yea drafting Rogers would of been ideal but NOBODY could of imagined he'd turn out this good and 25 teams passed up on him as well, it's not like we were the only one. Just saying. I also think Caddy would have been a top 10- 12 back in this league if he never had all these injuries.

After those first 4 games he wasn't ever that good again...and really the first game was a bit of a fraud caused by one long run it was games 2,3,4 that were actually his good games.  He was a bad pick who never really was what we wanted him to be, plus the durability issues were there in college.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#20 : January 28, 2011, 10:05:42 AM


One guy said never take a RB in top 5 at all.   I don't agree.

Another said don't take the 3rd RB in the draft in top 5.   But I gave the example of Eddie George being the 3rd rated RB and he would have been a better pick than Upshaw.   And that is a fact.

To say you should NEVER take the 3rd rated RB in the top 5 is ridiculous.

And the fact that Caddy was rookie of the year in 2005 validates that pick at least to some extent.   No way does that 2005 team make the playoffs without Caddy.

All fact.

I frankly agree that top RB's are worthless picks (yes Peterson is good but really given lifepsan, injury risk, and relative value in todays NFL they're not good value) and taking the 3rd best ANYTHING at the top of the draft is risky.  Can I come up with some magical example of a draft where the 3rd best player at one spot might be a value, yes but the sad reality is that it just doesn't happen.

George really wasn't all that good a player (3.6 ypc over his career isn't good, he piled up yards on the Errict Rhett plan)  and the fact remains that George was the 3rd best RB in a class but Upshaw was the 3rd best DE in that draft so you weren't taking the 3rd best RB over the top rated guy at almost every other position.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

JDog

User is on moderator watch listWatched
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2571
Offline
#21 : January 28, 2011, 10:22:47 AM

Ya, maybe they should have taken the top rated QB in 96 instead - Tony Banks.


Blaze688

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3092
Offline
#22 : January 28, 2011, 10:30:52 AM

1996 the Bucs took Regan Upshaw with their first pick.   They could have taken the 3rd rated Running back in that draft rather than Upshaw.   That back was Eddie George.   I don't think you would find many people who think Regan Upshaw was a better pro than Eddie George.

Quick check. Upshaw wasn't taken in the top 5.

And the fact that Caddy was rookie of the year in 2005 validates that pick at least to some extent.   No way does that 2005 team make the playoffs without Caddy.


No way does that 2005 team lose against the Redskins -- while only allowing 120 yards -- if Carnell averages more than 2.72 yards per carry, and doesn't fumble the ball to Sean Taylor for a touchdown.  He's been a BIG disappointment, regardless of the injuries.


jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1038
Offline
#23 : January 28, 2011, 10:41:03 AM

it's probably never a good idea to take the 3rd RB in the draft class when you are picking at #5

There are a lot bigger busts than Caddy in that draft.  In fact I'd say the pick has produced at about the middle of the pack for first rounders that year. At least he's still a productive role player for the Bucs.


But yeah, probly not the best idea in the world.

jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1038
Offline
#24 : January 28, 2011, 10:52:29 AM

1996 the Bucs took Regan Upshaw with their first pick.   They could have taken the 3rd rated Running back in that draft rather than Upshaw.   That back was Eddie George.   I don't think you would find many people who think Regan Upshaw was a better pro than Eddie George.

Quick check. Upshaw wasn't taken in the top 5.

And the fact that Caddy was rookie of the year in 2005 validates that pick at least to some extent.   No way does that 2005 team make the playoffs without Caddy.


No way does that 2005 team lose against the Redskins -- while only allowing 120 yards -- if Carnell averages more than 2.72 yards per carry, and doesn't fumble the ball to Sean Taylor for a touchdown.  He's been a BIG disappointment, regardless of the injuries.

Are you 12 years old?  A BIG dissapointment regarding a first round NFL draft pick is not having a guy still helping your team 5 years later.  A big disapointment is having him be out of the league five years later and that happens close to half the time so you need to take it down a notch.  I used to be a kid once too and I thought the next first round pick was the next greatest player in the universe but it doesn't work that way.  You hope to hit on two or three picks a year (Caddy has actually been a hit as drafts go).  If you get one great player out of a draft you're elated.  The idea that if your first round pick doesn't get to the Hall (Whoops Caddy's in the hall) he's a huge disapointment is an awfully childish way to look at things.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27579
Online
#25 : January 28, 2011, 11:52:46 AM

it's probably never a good idea to take the 3rd RB in the draft class when you are picking at #5

There are a lot bigger busts than Caddy in that draft.  In fact I'd say the pick has produced at about the middle of the pack for first rounders that year. At least he's still a productive role player for the Bucs.


But yeah, probly not the best idea in the world.
Too bad we didn't still have Rich McKay picking players for us that year. He got a heck of a player at the end of the 1st round.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

Dy-nasty D

*
Starter
****
Posts : 635
Offline
#26 : January 28, 2011, 12:55:17 PM

Yeah, hindsight makes us all geniuses. 

Still, rule of thumb before you have hindsight: In the top 5, if there is good talent at QB, LT, DL, LT you take one of them over a RB, S, CB, TE, G, etc.

Of course there will be exceptions, but you don't know the exceptions until after their careers play out.

Blaze688

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3092
Offline
#27 : January 28, 2011, 02:03:00 PM

Are you 12 years old?  A BIG dissapointment regarding a first round NFL draft pick is not having a guy still helping your team 5 years later.  A big disapointment is having him be out of the league five years later and that happens close to half the time so you need to take it down a notch.

You shouldn't disparage someone's opinion by calling them a "kid," then go on to misspell the word "disappointment" twice in two sentences.  And regardless, my age has nothing to do with it.  If you think a first round (TOP FIVE OVERALL) running back should be good for 3700 yards in six years, then you have no idea how the draft is supposed to work.  Cadillac Williams is an enormous disappointment.

Since the merger, there've 67 first-round running backs have started at least 50 games.  When you measure the first six years of each of their careers, Cadillac ranks 50th in rushing yards.  He's another John Stephens.  Another Leonard Russell.

You don't expect a top five running back to be Eric **CENSORED**erson.  You don't expect him to be Barry Sanders or Walter Payton.  But you expect him to be good.  You hope he's better than TOP FIFTY among his contemporaries.  You want him to be better than Garrison Hearst, or John Williams.

I used to be a kid once too and I thought the next first round pick was the next greatest player in the universe but it doesn't work that way.

I know.  I'm not naive.  But you pray your franchise running back is at least competent, which Cadillac hasn't been for most of his career.

You hope to hit on two or three picks a year (Caddy has actually been a hit as drafts go).

A hit?  The guy who just had his best season as a backup?  A third down back?  After losing his job to an undrafted rookie, because he was averaging 2.6 yards per carry in the starting role?  That's a hit?  What the **CENSORED** is a miss?

If you get one great player out of a draft you're elated.  The idea that if your first round pick doesn't get to the Hall (Whoops Caddy's in the hall) he's a huge disapointment is an awfully childish way to look at things.

First of all, Carnell's gloves and cleats are in the Hall.  Second of all, Cadillac's not a disappointment because he's not going to the Hall of Fame.  He's a disappointment because he's had a horrible career, and is the 50th best first round running back selected in the last forty years.

And third of all, it's D-I-S-A-P-P-O-I-N-T-M-E-N-T.


jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13595
Offline
#28 : January 28, 2011, 02:15:57 PM

We have missed on plenty. Do we really need to feel even WORSE about it as opposed to GOOD about who we got last year?

In Verner We Trust

jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1038
Offline
#29 : January 28, 2011, 05:37:29 PM

Are you 12 years old?  A BIG dissapointment regarding a first round NFL draft pick is not having a guy still helping your team 5 years later.  A big disapointment is having him be out of the league five years later and that happens close to half the time so you need to take it down a notch.

You shouldn't disparage someone's opinion by calling them a "kid," then go on to misspell the word "disappointment" twice in two sentences.  And regardless, my age has nothing to do with it.  If you think a first round (TOP FIVE OVERALL) running back should be good for 3700 yards in six years, then you have no idea how the draft is supposed to work.  Cadillac Williams is an enormous disappointment.

Since the merger, there've 67 first-round running backs have started at least 50 games.  When you measure the first six years of each of their careers, Cadillac ranks 50th in rushing yards.  He's another John Stephens.  Another Leonard Russell.

You don't expect a top five running back to be Eric **CENSORED**erson.  You don't expect him to be Barry Sanders or Walter Payton.  But you expect him to be good.  You hope he's better than TOP FIFTY among his contemporaries.  You want him to be better than Garrison Hearst, or John Williams.

I used to be a kid once too and I thought the next first round pick was the next greatest player in the universe but it doesn't work that way.

I know.  I'm not naive.  But you pray your franchise running back is at least competent, which Cadillac hasn't been for most of his career.

You hope to hit on two or three picks a year (Caddy has actually been a hit as drafts go).

A hit?  The guy who just had his best season as a backup?  A third down back?  After losing his job to an undrafted rookie, because he was averaging 2.6 yards per carry in the starting role?  That's a hit?  What the **CENSORED** is a miss?

If you get one great player out of a draft you're elated.  The idea that if your first round pick doesn't get to the Hall (Whoops Caddy's in the hall) he's a huge disapointment is an awfully childish way to look at things.

First of all, Carnell's gloves and cleats are in the Hall.  Second of all, Cadillac's not a disappointment because he's not going to the Hall of Fame.  He's a disappointment because he's had a horrible career, and is the 50th best first round running back selected in the last forty years.

And third of all, it's D-I-S-A-P-P-O-I-N-T-M-E-N-T.

I can't believe I wasted my time reading this.  Lets just move on to your hatred of John Gruden and Bruce Allen.

And whats with this starting 50 games BS.  You have to be far beyond a huge disappointment to start 50 games in the NFL.  You fail at logic.
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Kiper 2005 Re-draft « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools