Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dissecting Nick Diaz's Positive Drug Test

Draft Trends, by Potato

Courtesy, naturally, of Danny O'Neil. Ordinarily, I'd have a thoroughly good time mocking whatever a particular Times writer has to say. Who am I to buck tradition?

There wasn't a single wide receiver chosen in the first round of last year's draft. That was strange considering that since 2000 more first-round picks were used on wide receivers than any other position.

In fact, a first round hadn't finished without a wide receiver being chosen since 1990. It won't happen again. Texas Tech wide receiver Michael Crabtree is expected to be a top 10 choice. In fact, many people expect the Seahawks to choose Crabtree No. 4 overall.

It would be petty to point out that just because a wideout will certainly go in the first round this year, you can't rule out a repeat of last year's receiver-less first round.

Stands to reason that if wide receivers are such hot potatoes that they get drafted in the first round more often than any other type of potatoes, they'd be the most common type of potato found among the top-five choices, too.

Does that mean that last year's first round was the Potato Famine?

Quarterbacks have been chosen more often than any other position in the top five spots of the draft. Of the past 45 players picked among the top five since 2000, 10 were quarterbacks. Offensive tackles were the second most-common position in the top five.

We also learn some of the trends from the rest of the draft, a topic that has been touched on here occasionally. The article itself has the draft volumes by position in tabular form. These trends do exist for a reason: teams view certain positions as more valuable (clearly, ya eejit) and are only willing to spend their pick / money on those select few positions. Browse the article and see what you think about the trends. I leave you with this pot o' gold:

Cornerbacks and linebackers are among the most common positions picked from choices No. 11 through No. 32 and among the least common among the top five, which could point to the perception that there are more options at those positions. Or to take a sledgehammer to pound my food metaphor into the ground, if you miss out on one hot potato at those positions and you're going to get another potato that's almost as tasty.

Comment 39 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

wow, Mr Potato

I’d like to say Patato, on this one.
trends are good to identify, but the draft genome project, is something for nerds to ponder.
You select the BEST player available at the time, who can help your team on Sunday.
Regardless of position.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 13, 2009 8:53 AM PST reply actions  

best player available at the time.

I would have taken S Taylor Mays (USC) at #4 if he was coming out this year.
No hesitation.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 13, 2009 9:06 AM PST reply actions  

Well, before anyone argues with you

and brings up stuff we’ve already talked about, I’ll link this old fanpost on Taylor Mays

by LantermanC on Feb 13, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Oh sorry.

i didnt know T Mays was a dead topic.
I just was using him as an example.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 13, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Best player available ideology sparks a question:

Would you pick, with the #4 overall pick, what would become the best punter to ever grace the turf?

by myx on Feb 13, 2009 9:13 AM PST reply actions  

That punter would be amazing.

Sign him up!

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 13, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions  

All hail ROBO PUNTER

Awesome. Thanks for the link.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 13, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions  

no.

great question though.
Would you buy a 1 lb sack of gourmet potatoes
the kind you get at a really fancy restaraunt,
for $250?

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 13, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions  

The wide receiver and linebacker data is prettty misleading

teams employ more wide receivers and linebackers overall. Until a team figures out a triple quarterback offense, I don’t think it’s meaningful to compare the number of linebackers drafted to the number of quarterbacks drafted.

by John Morgan on Feb 13, 2009 10:04 AM PST reply actions  

yea supply and demand is still alive.

there is a greater need for linebackers and receivers.
but you could break those positions into categories themselves;
slot receiver i.e.Deion Branch, flanker Burleson, possession receiver Engram.
same with linebackers; 3-4 guy, Middle Linebacker, Outside LB.
doing this it dilutes those inflated numbers .

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 13, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions  

SHIFT KEY ALERT!!

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Feb 13, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions  

I would be happy

if you actually used the
shift key when you wrote

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Feb 13, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions  

walking the snow-crust
         not sinking
             sinking

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 13, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Snape kills
Albus Dumbledore
on page 606

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 13, 2009 9:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Wait, what?

“It would be petty to point out that just because a wideout will certainly go in the first round this year, you can’t rule out a repeat of last year’s receiver-less first round.”

I’m confused as to what this means. Explain in idiot-speak for me.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 13, 2009 11:30 AM PST reply actions  

O'Neil pointed out that last year's receiver-less first round was somewhat of an anomaly.

He then said that, because of Crabtree, that would never happen again. I was merely sniping at his ability to write / formulate / express rational argument.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Me too, upon re-read.

No worries, though, abender, because most of O’Neil’s posts are nonsensical like this.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 13, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Can we stop...

…with the posting of articles from outside sources that contain no new information, merely for the purpose of mocking them? Once in a while it’s funny, when the article really is so bad it almost demands to be mocked. But it seems like now you’re just looking around for fluff pieces that you can pick apart.

Case in point: “It would be petty to point out that just because a wideout will certainly go in the first round this year, you can’t rule out a repeat of last year’s receiver-less first round.”

Yes, it is petty. Particularly since, if you read that blurb again, O’Neill doesn’t make the cause and effect statement that you’re implying he did: Where exactly does O’Neill say that a wideout will go in the first round this year JUST BECAUSE it didn’t happen last year? He doesn’t. He just says last year was an oddity, and this year Crabtree seems a lock to go in the top 10. Not exactly breaking news, but also not the boneheaded argument you’ve attributed to him.

I enjoy the humor on this site, and I agree that the analysis here is WAY better than anything you’re likely to get in the Times. But this just seems smug.

by sev79 on Feb 13, 2009 12:51 PM PST reply actions  

This one wasn't amazing for that part...

but the “Hot Potato” part was so funny I loved that this was written today.

And the other ones have always been so worth it. At least in my opinion.

by cashless on Feb 13, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions  

O'Neil's diction was poor there: He made it seem as if Crabtree being available this year would keep any future first round from passing without a receiver being picked, ever again.

Anyway, if you read the actual article itself (as is the point of these things), you’ll find that there is a quasi-interesting breakdown of how the draft has gone historically in the first round / top 5 picks. That’s Seahawks relevant. Considering where we are in the offseason, there is a dearth of interesting Seahawks pieces outside of draft coverage, so that’s what you get. If I can present an article with some relevance, I will. If I can add something substantial in my commentary, I will. If the article mostly speaks for itself, and I find that it’s still worth making fun of… you get today’s post.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Being Irish and old...

the Patato famine scared the shiat out of me…

I say we trade up for Keyshawn Crabtree…

Just kidding… plz, no hazing…

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Feb 13, 2009 1:43 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The Official Field Gulls OT Thread - In Which We Gush About Our Favorite TV Shows

Recent FanPosts

Photo_on_2011-10-14_at_23
Jim Harbaugh Vs. Pete Carroll
Small
Nation Wide Mock Draft
Small
Could Dre Kirkpatrick be the key to our 2012 draft?
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
Seahawks QB Situation: Not a Defense for Tarvaris Jackson
Small
Team Needs - The National Perception of Seattle
Small
2012 Mock Draft, Version 1.0
Walshrun_small
Super Bowl XLVI Reaction: New England Patriots
Small
My Friend has a Friend who works for Nike...
208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small
GM John Schneider On The Ideal QB
Bodypaint_small
Delocated ad

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

284430_601240951600_44900771_32958650_2317286_n_small Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Hatersgonnahate_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Halloween_mobster_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Mail Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Osprey1_small Ben Harbaugh

Easleystreet2_small ChadDavis45

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill