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.
0 recs |
39 comments
Comments
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 0 recs
Unless you are in need of a kicker, a punter, a safety, a center, a guard, or a fullback (In the top 5, anyway)
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Landry was the 6th pick?
Not sure what the highest guard pick is. You could put TE here as well except for athletic freaks like Vernon Davis.
by LantermanC on Feb 13, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Leonard Davis / Robert Gallery, although that's somewhat misleading as both were drafted to be tackles.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
No problem, I just was hoping against another giant discussion on Taylor Mays
so I thought I’d post one (of many) discussions we’ve had on him.
by LantermanC on Feb 13, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
Not unless that punter was capable of kicking every single ball, regardless of distance, exactly out of bounds at the 1 yard line.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
A little link for those of you who haven't read the Football Outsider's Robo-Punter thread.
It gets going in the comments, but this is the greatest thread in FO history.
by Jed MC on Feb 13, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
What's up with the weird spacing?
by John Morgan on Feb 13, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
alright, get out your red pen.
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Feb 13, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
It would be appreciated if you would lay off the haiku style spacing
and used your shift key when appropriate.
by BrianL on Feb 13, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
Yeah, I meant to comment on that and was forced to do actual work while at work. The nerve!
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
As you can see, Danny O'Neil will be of endless amusement to me as I continue to write these pieces up.
He will be like my Plashke / McCarver.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure the implied part of the sentence is "in 2009" not "ever"
when he says it won’t happen again.
by Matthew on Feb 13, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is certainly what he was trying to express, but it doesn't read that way.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 13, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
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 0 recs
I thought this was abenders20 best.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 13, 2009 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
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 0 recs

by 
















