There is an inherent problem with using draft sites to judge a player a reach.
The true professionals are the scouts and GMs on teams NOT the guessing gurus. What other TEAMS WILL DO may not match what gurus say.
We have to look all the way back to.........This seasons Steeler 1st round pick for proof.
ALMOST EVERYBODY on this site thought it a reach based on what gurus said. NEARLY ALL OF THEM had Mosely RANKED HIGHER.
If we wanted Shazier we could have surely moved back?
THEN we find out Shazier would have been snapped up WITH THE VERY NEXT PICK. That team had no interest in Moseley.
We drafted a guy who is not only much faster much more athletic HE WAS MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE in college. But MOSELEY is the household name.
We KNOW two teams like Shazier despite the gurus. Dallas was so excited that they could not wait for our pick to tell him.
For all we know today THE CONSENSUS OF NFL TEAMS is that Shazier was higher.
SIMILARLY WITH TIMMONS you cannot assume he was a reach just because gurus had him slated FOR JUST A FEW PICKS LATER IN THE SAME ROUND. If YOUR SCOUTS think he is BPA at a position you cannot assume other teams don't see what you see.
If YOU LIKE A PLAYER at that slot, YOU CANNOT ASSUME OTHER TEAMS HAVE IT WRONG and you can get him later.
Two scenarios where you trade down. You are happy with any of SEVERAL PLAYERS and you know you will get one of them. Or teams ahead of us don't need the position you want (that is risky because of trade possibilities).
Other than that if you love a guy at a position, you gotta take him because YOUR SCOUTING and the scouts of EVERYONE ELSE do the evaluating and ain't looking at what Kiper says.
We are happy to have Timmons and we HAVE NO IDEA if he would have been available later.
You cannot call him a reach.
Last edited by Captain Lemming; 07-07-2014 at 11:55 AM.
tomlins playoff record with mostly cowhers players 5-2 (first 4 years)
with mostly his own 3-4 (last 6 years)
averaging 1 1/4 win per year and a 1/2 a loss per year with cowhers guys
averaging 1/2 win per year and 3/4 losses per year with his own
Nevertheless, I contend that my argument is valid as far as your original central point that he was picked early. I have proven that guru projections do not tell us how other TEAMS rank a player. If some guru has a dude ranked a hand full of picks lower does not mean a player was picked too early.
Last edited by Captain Lemming; 07-07-2014 at 12:49 PM.
In fact it adds to MY original point. GURUS who had Timmons ranked lower have been proven wrong along with the rest of us.
Those same "experts" had Moseley higher than Shazier which is why some question the Shazier pick.
While only time will tell with any draft pick here is my point:
The team was proven correct about Timmons and Shazier is a MUCH BETTER PROSPECT than Timmons was at this point in every conceivable way. He was picked at the same point in the draft. It is FOOLISH to question the pick of Shazier at 15 based on that fact.
Last edited by Captain Lemming; 07-07-2014 at 01:18 PM.
Where I went wrong was in entertaining your flawed premise...
In perpetuating the flawed premise, we could look at the draft grades...
[URL]http://walterfootball.com/draft2007GRADE.php[/URL]11. Lawrence Timmons, OLB, Pittsburgh Steelers (15th Pick)
[URL]http://www.footballsfuture.com/2007/afcgrades.html[/URL]Good Moves: I thought it would be Lawrence Timmons or Paul Posluszny at No. 15. The Steelers went with the former. I have no problem with that
[URL]http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/draft/2007-04-29-team-grades_N.htm[/URL]Worst Pick: None. Lawrence Timmons and Woodley were great picks
[URL]http://www.docsports.com/2007/nfl-draft-grades.html[/URL]Pittsburgh Steelers ***
It was a little surprising the Steelers didn't grab [URL="http://fantasyfootball.usatoday.com/content/player.asp?sport=NFL&id=4192"]Jon Beason[/URL], but they still solved a linebacker need with [URL="http://fantasyfootball.usatoday.com/content/player.asp?sport=NFL&id=4195"]Lawrence Timmons[/URL] and have an excellent track record of drafting correctly there.
Pittsburgh (B+) - I think their first five selections range from solid to spectacular.