And if those figures are no different from those of the average NFL team, or from the best teams in the league, when you're using them to discredit Jeff Ireland, your point is invalid. That's why that kind of systematic investigation is necessary: to validate your point!
He was not a draft choice , we have reviewed that multiple times , the request is for Ireland proponents to list drafted players that have substantially out performed their draft status , like the 15 players or so , off the top of my head , have done for playoff teams. Please feel free to illuminate us on this matter. It is not a rare occurence and a pattern succesful GM's have , as the facts show.
I am not a hater , I am however realistic , and I have shown factual evidence on why Ireland should be held accountable for his player decisions. Contrary to your statement it is logical and that logic has never been refuted with facts.
But only one side is actually contending something (i.e., the team is devoid of talent, and Jeff Ireland is therefore a bad GM). The other side (my version of it at least) is simply saying we don't know whether that contention is valid without any supporting facts.
When I point out what you request you tend to change direction. I for one have never said the team is devoid of talent , I have said we lack talent ,playmakers , difference makers, that isn't the same. Specifically I have said Ireland has not drafted players that have substantially out performed their draft slot. You said he is in the same range for this as other GM's , many players/teams were then illustrated to refute that. My criticism here is that Ireland has not drafted players that have substantially played better than for where they were drafted . GM's that have and do, do this build stronger talent bases for their teams , which tend to produce more wins , less losses and contribute to being in and winning playoff games. I believe this aspect to be a key component for a GM and one that Ireland has not , at all done well with. One where GM's for playoff teams on the other hand have , and thus a significant reason if at the end of this year we don't see this changed from the players he has drafted I would make the change at the GM level. You have been shown multiple examples both for players and for teams , you may want to retain Ireland but saying you haven't been given supporting facts is inaccurate.
And it's totally fine if you believe that as a philosophical position. But if you want to establish it as a fact, you have to do far more systematic research of this than you've done. You need to 1) show that there is a significant correlation between winning and drafting players who play better than where they were drafted (it's entirely possible those variables aren't significantly correlated, probably because drafting players who play better than where they were drafted is rare and is more than negated by drafting players who bust), and 2) that Ireland has done this significantly less frequently than the average GM and/or the most successful GMs in the league.
Point 2. Name me ONE player he has drafted that fits this criteria , and btw Hartline isn't the one , no disrespect to Hartline. My point is more than valid and I named numerous difference makers from most of the teams that made the playoffs , so that again validates your point number 2 unless you think making the playoffs is not successful. Point 1 , it isn't rare when you can drop 15 players who did just that from memory , just like you can't name 1 that Ireland has drafted. This is from RECENT drafts btw , so you are choosing not to acknowledge there is a legitimate point and that Ireland indeed has a shortcoming regarding this. I can and do admit that Ireland has drafted some solid players , that we are not "devoid" of talent and that I don't hate him as some do , that you won't admit there is a real tangible point on this matter is up to you . There is and it makes a difference on the field but you actually do know that . I am not going to do some detailed metric or methodology when it is not needed , you can continue to be an ostrich on this matter , it doesn't change that I am correct.
I understand. I guess the fact that it is merely a possibility doesn't reduce my concerns much. A much more enlightening, comforting, and worthy argument would be why Tanne is Manny instead. :P The problem is you can kind of play the "possibility" game to the point of ad nauseum. I am sure there was a case where a QB wasn't even in the league after college and comes in and does well ( Kurt Warner? ). So you could make a case for even the most inept QB "that it's possible" he will turn out to be good. You can see how far these arguments can go. Literally you can't count out an QB until he is well past his playing age and or in the grave, because there is always a "chance" argument that can be made. Who were the people exactly that were saying that this one game sealed Tanne's fate and he is a bust forever? Or was there no one specifically and you were just trying to put out a reminder to the forum members?
You're missing the point of the argument. The argument is not that there's a chance Tannehill is the next Manning, although that possibility exists; the argument is that one bad game doesn't mean he's not. Every QB who comes into the league is possibly the next Manning, even before he's played a game. The point of this thread is to rein in the thoughts that this one bad game means anything.
One bad game is meaningless, but what if it were a good game? Would you be as quick to dismiss it, or would it go in the useful data point file?
It would be just as meaningless to me personally. Just like I did with this Peyton Manning thread, you could probably go find a number of quarterbacks who had great first games and terrible careers overall.
I can, and almost did. A few names came to mind from recent memory. Caleb Hanie Matt Flynn Matt Cassel Kevin Kolb I didn't mean to sound like I was calling you out on it, but I know there are those who would take the good game and run with the "told you so" just like those who have ran with the bad game.
My stance is that all the college talent in the world is useless without proper development, so how am I to judge the players from previous drafts that: A) I don't know how much input Parcells had B) Was coached by possibly the most inept HC we've had since Wanny. Yes I think Sparano is worse than Cameron by the way, thats another debate The fact that I love this current draft certainly helps. Last year wasn't amazing but I do think we have a great player in Pouncey and a guy I think will prove a lot of people wrong in Daniel Thomas.
