Jump to content

Thoughts: Trading Back, Burkhead, Drafting a TE


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, omgdrdoom said:

:lol: 

That's pretty good man, but Weston has still yet to prove any of the "logical" points he's making.

The NFL draft isn't black and white, you can't just say that it's illogical to take a TE with a top 10 pick and use cherry picked injuries from arbitrary years chosen by a fantasy football article about who the "good" TEs are and use that as your proof. It's flat out silly to anyone that understands what "logic" actually means.

The thread started out with "All the top TEs have had serious injuries. An early investment at TE (and RB for the same reason) doesn't make a ton of sense." and now in MW's latest post it's turned into "Or maybe it just doesn't make sense to draft one early because the guys who see the most time get hurt more often than any other position"

So it went from all of the "top" TEs have had serious injuries to guys who see the most time get hurt more often. That's a pretty big difference, no? Let's be honest though, neither really make sense as again, the draft isn't in a vacuum and you can't write off any position on offense or defense without understanding the context to each team composition and draft class.

It's just a matter of which stats Weston will allow and which ones he won't. He's clearly only wanting to use very specific data to "prove" his nonsensical "logic".

If you look at 2017, there are a lot of "top" TEs that were available for more games than "top" WRs around the league and vice versa. There are a lot of positions where injuries occur and I don't think there's some monopoly by TEs for sustaining severe injuries. For some reason the only data that's been OK'd by the Logic Master Weston has been some obscure fantasy football website that took data from a 2 year span and that's obviously enough proof when confirmation bias is involved. LIDJ posted a long term chart showing all positions over a 14 year span but that wasn't good enough since it showed how being a TE hasn't been a fast track to the injury report.

I guess the best point to make would be the fact that even if TEs got injured at a slightly higher rate than other positions, it's STILL not "illogical" to take a TE with early draft picks because yet a-fucking-gain, the NFL draft isn't in a vacuum where you can make that kind of blanket statement logically.

It's really frustrating to get a point across when someone is screaming from a mountaintop about how logical they are when they're being anything but. Go ahead and say you don't want Howard at 9 and I'm fine with that opinion. Just don't try to twist it into something that it doesn't need to be, which is what this thread has devolved into.

And we are back for round 2 and Doom comes out swinging hard, he lands a 3 piece combo that has MW on the ropes....How will the Socrates of Go-Bengals.com respond?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

data from a 2 year span

It's amazing when you run the averages how much Gronk and Eifert drag that number down. So, to help out, the data correlates to two fragile TE's being the best in the league right now, but doesn't prove that the TE position is necessarily more fragile - aka causation. (I had one of my adult friends help me with that.) If I flip a coin twice and it lands on heads both times, that doesn't mean that all coins always land on heads.

I mentioned in the initial reply that the statement was loaded with so much hyperbole it was going to be a losing argument to make. Best way to lose a case is to overstate it and all of that.

The conversation was going nowhere, so why bother? I'm not going to change his mind and he's not going to change mine. Not only might it plain not matter next week, but our opinions have nothing to do with the card that's going to get turned in.

You're welcome to attack my points, I love a good debate, but when it turns personal I'm mature enough to walk away. No need to wrestle with pigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have written that almost all of the top TE's have serious injuries. Not all of the top TE's have serious injuries. That first part was an over statement.

The data I provided was different than the other data provided and I deem it to be more relevant. The other data included all players at a position. The Data I provided included the top players at the position. 

TE's get hurt more often than other positions so I wouldn't personally ever invest a first round pick in a TE because you are giving up too much to take a player that is more likely to get hurt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...