The ATL Trade?

[onejayhawk]

This is a gigantic business and if you think there is no statistical analysis based on past drafts in determining the value of future picks and that it's just a crapshoot then I think you're underestimating the complexity of the process.

The NFL is NOT a gigantic business. It is barely worth calling large. Compared to my budget, certainly, but not, say, Exxon or Boeing.

That being said, it is a business, and good businessmen use a lot of analytical tools. Perhaps a couple of points.

1) Cleveland has been trading down quite a bit. Personally, I think the decision is based on a perception that low 1st round picks are more cost effective than top 10 picks. That is, possibly, just me projecting. There choice this year, Phil Taylor, could easily be an impact player, and is certainly cheaper than, say, Jake Locker or even Nick Fairley.

2) Atlanta has been building a solid roster for years. They clearly feel that solid will only take you so far, and that they have reached that point.

3) If JJ becomes Megatron II, then Atlanta made out like a bandit. If Phil Taylor becomes Vince Wilfork, ditto for the Browns. Of course there exists the possibility that JJones more resembles Crabtree, or that none of the extra Browns picks ever earns a starting spot. Your pays your money, you tries your skill, and gets your desserts.

J

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by OGDraft

Thank Matt Ryan for that. 6 turnovers in 2 playoff games isn't going to get it done. I don't see how having a better #2 WR would have made any more of an impact in that game.

You need to go back and watch the game then. I bet Julio Jones wouldn't fall down in this situation:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...000d5d81db449f

He can also help take focus off Roddy White.

[TACKLE]

It's interesting how much of our evaluations are based around how we perceive game speed based off watching these guys play on TV. It's just so subjective yet interestingly enough, people usually come to a consensus when it comes to perceived game speed.

On that note, maybe this is silly, but sometimes I wonder if and how much a prospect's team, uniform and gear effects how fast a player looks. Let's use, I don't know, Julio Jones (though I think this can apply across the board) as an example. He plays for Bama, a school known for size, strength, toughness but not speed, his team has old school plain unis, he wears an awkward old Revo helmet, has bulky taped. Again maybe this is silly but I think there is some truth to it. If Julio went somewhere like VT, Miami, Clemson, LSU and was all geared up, I can't help but think that it would feel about his speed.

This isn't so much a commentary on Julio but how even something like speed and explosiveness can be subjective.

[OGDraft]

Originally Posted by Halsey

You need to go back and watch the game then. I bet Julio Jones wouldn't fall down in this situation:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...000d5d81db449f

He can also help take focus off Roddy White.

If Matt Ryan throws that ball on time and doesn't underthrow it it's a TD. You're obviously a giant Falcons homer who will not let this go even though you make illogical points but in your world the Falcons are the greatest team ever and can do no wrong. Boo. I never understood why some fans can never criticize their team, it's not like it makes you less of a fan.

I guarantee though the Falcons will not win a Superbowl until we bring in some more help on defense because that's where we're lacking. That, and Matt Ryan needs to stop turning the ball over in the most important games of the season.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by OGDraft

If Matt Ryan throws that ball on time

JUst stop. It's the NFL. WRs need to be able to adjust to passes that aren't perfectly thrown. Not fall down. The 'it's all Matt Ryan's fault' arguments are dumb and old. He's going to be the Falcons QB for a long time. Surrounding him with quality weapons will only help him. Michael Jenkins is not a quality weapon.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

Says a nobody on a message board. Jones had well over 300 yards receiving in 3 games vs LSU. You don't do that by being slow.

Originally Posted by Halsey

Another irrelevant opinion.

Fact: Over 300 yards in 3 games vs LSU

Meaningless opinion: OMGZ Julio Jones looks slow!

seriously?

"your opinion is irrelevant, but mine isn't"
"you're on the internet so you're wrong"
"he had lots of yards, so i'm right"

come on.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by njx9

seriously?

"your opinion is irrelevant, but mine isn't"

Never said that. I back up my points with more than "he looks slow".

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

Never said that. I back up my points with more than "he looks slow".

so did sativa, and instead of discussing his asasertion that jones' acceleration sucks, you resorted to the intellectual equivalent of "nuh-uh".

[Halsey]

There's no reason to discuss it. Jones catches the pass at his own 24, turns up field, blows by the LSU defense, and crosses into the endzone in around 9 seconds. The same guy arguing that Jones is slow used Mayock to defend his point. Mayock ranked Jones the 7th best player in the Draft.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

The same guy arguing that Jones is slow used Mayock to defend his point. Mayock ranked Jones the 7th best player in the Draft.

you realize there's no relationship whatsoever between those two statements, right? i can still rate a guy highly (in relation to others in the class), even if i think there are question about his speed. it's like denying that scott listed open field elusiveness as a weakness for aj green, solely because he rated him as the 2nd best prospect in the draft.

that's not even discussing the fact that you yet again just said 'nuh-uh', without any rational defense whatsoever to the original assertion.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by njx9

you realize there's no relationship whatsoever between those two statements, right?

There's no relationship between using Mayock to back up the opinion that Jones plays slow and where Mayock ranks Jones? I'm pretty sure Maycok wouldn't rank Jones 7th if he thought Jones played slow. ;)

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

There's no relationship between using Mayock to back up the opinion that Jones plays slow and where Mayock ranks Jones? I'm pretty sure Maycok wouldn't rank Jones 7th if he thought Jones played slow. ;)

Originally Posted by njx9

it's like denying that scott listed open field elusiveness as a weakness for aj green, solely because he rated him as the 2nd best prospect in the draft.

let's try to keep up.

[Halsey]

You want to use Scott's opinion? The guy who wrote this:

"A long strider and a vertical threat with sneaky speed"

Be my guest, but I thought you were arguing against me.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

You want to use Scott's opinion? The guy who wrote this:

"A long strider and a vertical threat with sneaky speed"

Be my guest, but I thought you were arguing against me.

*whoosh*

i can almost see the thought process... 'gosh, if i continually mis-direct and willfully misrepresent every single thing said, i can't possibly lose the argument.'

i'm not playing that game. no one's using scott's opinion of anything, except as an analogy for your own horrifically flawed argument.

[Halsey]

You're arguing Jones plays slow and claim my argument is flawed. Funny.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

You're arguing Jones plays slow and claim my argument is flawed. Funny.

please quote where i said jones plays slow. then explain the complete non-sequitur. claiming he plays slow and your argument being flawed are not only inherently unrelated, i could certainly claim both. wait, i'm guessing... mis-direct. are you actually incapable of discussing this rationally, or are you intentionally dishonest?

[Bosanac01]

Originally Posted by njx9

please quote where i said jones plays slow. then explain the complete non-sequitur. claiming he plays slow and your argument being flawed are not only inherently unrelated, i could certainly claim both. wait, i'm guessing... mis-direct. are you actually incapable of discussing this rationally, or are you intentionally dishonest?

"jones plays slow."

I found it. :D

[prock]

Hasley has literally strawman-ed every single logical point in this entire thread. I don't think it's intentional, I believe he just doesn't understand basic rhetorical concepts. He just can't quite grasp anything beyond the very surface, context be damned.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by njx9

seriously?

"your opinion is irrelevant, but mine isn't"
"you're on the internet so you're wrong"
"he had lots of yards, so i'm right"

come on.

You responded to my posts with this and wonder why it seems you're taking the 'Jones is slow' side. What were you arguing against then? That you just didn't like that I was right? That you just wanted an excuse to make another "non-sequitur! I deem your arguments to be invalid!" post? Do you even know what you're arguing? I think you just like making pointless arguments. Find a new gimmick or something. Your act is old and predictable.

[TitanHope]

Originally Posted by Halsey

You responded to my posts with this and wonder why it seems you're taking the 'Jones is slow' side. What were you arguing against then? That you just didn't like that I was right? That you just wanted an excuse to make another "non-sequitur! I deem your arguments to be invalid!" post? Do you even know what you're arguing? I think you just like making pointless arguments. Find a new gimmick or something. Your act is old and predictable.

You don't need to find a new "gimmick" when the current one works. "He had 300 yards in 3 games against LSU. You don't do that if you're slow," is the VERY DEFINITION of non sequitur. It's like saying, "This building is sturdy. It can't be that if it's not made of metal."

Wanna know how to get people to not call your arguments illogical? Make them logical.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

You responded to my posts with this and wonder why it seems you're taking the 'Jones is slow' side. What were you arguing against then? That you just didn't like that I was right? That you just wanted an excuse to make another "non-sequitur! I deem your arguments to be invalid!" post? Do you even know what you're arguing? I think you just like making pointless arguments. Find a new gimmick or something. Your act is old and predictable.

i think it's fairly clear that i think your 'arguments' are a joke, and if you actually intend to sway anyone's opinion, you should work on that. instead, we get another deflection.

i mean, really? 'that you just didn't like that i was right?' you're not bloody right because you proclaim that you are. you're not bloody right because you can't even stay on point, and you've shown no ability whatsoever to coherently argue your point. i couldn't care less about whether jones is slow or not, but you've presented an absurd case for your side, and done nothing to convince anyone that you're right, beyond repeat that you are, over and over and over.

in before 'i don't care what you think' with a 'then why are you posting it on the internet'.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by TitanHope

You don't need to find a new "gimmick" when the current one works. "He had 300 yards in 3 games against LSU. You don't do that if you're slow," is the VERY DEFINITION of non sequitur.

No it's not. I don't think many of you here even know what non-sequitur means. You found a big word you like and just throw it out when you can't make a legitimate argument.

And the bottom line with this argument is that nobody with an effective brain cell in their head thinks Julio Jones plays slow. Does anyone here really think a lack of speed will be a problem for Jones in the NFL? Really? Really? This is one of those criticisms that come up on message boards, but don't actually mean anything on a football field.

[FUNBUNCHER]

My prediction for Julio's rookie stats:

60 catches/750-900 yards/ 7-10 TDs.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

No it's not. I don't think many of you here even know what non-sequitur means. You found a big word you like and just throw it out when you can't make a legitimate argument.

i'm pretty sure i know EXACTLY what it means, but keep deflecting. your entire counter still amounts to 'no, i posted a video' and 'nuh-uh' without addressing the actual criticism of that video. try again, halsey.

[SativaDominant]

Originally Posted by Halsey

No it's not. I don't think many of you here even know what non-sequitur means. You found a big word you like and just throw it out when you can't make a legitimate argument.

And the bottom line with this argument is that nobody with an effective brain cell in their head thinks Julio Jones plays slow. Does anyone here really think a lack of speed will be a problem for Jones in the NFL? Really? Really? This is one of those criticisms that come up on message boards, but don't actually mean anything on a football field.

A non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow the basic premise. In a non-sequitur the conclusion may or may not be correct. You can be completely right and still present disconnected logic.

This is the structure of the argument you're making:

Premise: WRs who do well against LSU must be fast.
Evidence: Julio Jones did well against LSU.
Conclusion: Julio Jones is fast.

The problem here is that we're working with an inherently flawed premise. It's common knowledge that you don't need elite speed - whether it's timed or "playing" speed - to do well against any collegiate defense. Trying to equivocate success to speed is where the disconnect in logic occurs.

So again (and slowly this time): doing...well...against...LSU...does...not...mean.. .you...play...fast.