Which Position Should the Team Avoid at #9?

[livefromDC]

It's not that I didn't like the response, you're entitled to your opinion and I encouraged it from the outset. What I didn't care for was the sanctimony (undeserving, I might add) in attempting to make the premise look silly. And instead of just owning that you came off as a total Richard, you've doubled down to try and justify your buffoonery.

Well my reading comprehension managed to catch a red herring, false equivalence, ad hominem and a strawman all in one single, blitheringly illogical paragraph. So congratulations on that front. I'll work on my comprehension, but perhaps you can work on your logic.

Sigh. There you go again. I didnt call your premise silly. I said it's counterproductive. It's counterproductive because you specifically said...

What position would you be least happy with the team selecting at #9, irrespective of the player?

THIS is illogical sense the specific player being drafted is the most important part of drafting equation. You didn't like my answer and now here we are with you throwing a tantrum because I suggested the premise was misguided. But then even though I thought the premise was misguided, after I stated why I thought it was the wrong way to look at it, I did my best to respond to your question. Because after all, you did create a thread to ask that specific question.

So when I said...

If I were pressed, I can safely say there's no offensive lineman worth one of the top 9 picks. Will Campbell would rank behind the top 5 OL in last year's draft and he's the best of this year's crop.

That means I'm only doing it because you asked. It means I'd rather not, but since you did....I will and you called me sanctimonious for answering the question you asked, although I wholly reject the premise of it.

Damn me for trying to give you an honest answer and explaining why. When most posters haven't left a response explaining their choice, I at least tried and you called me names for it. I gave you my opinion and you called me sanctimonious. I explained why I picked the position (in a thread where you asked us to pick a position) and you said I'm trashing the position. Smh...this is pointless.

 

[livefromDC]

None

Lord help me, this is what I should have said before moving on to another thread. None. Because the team shouldn't look to avoid a position. But stupid me, I tried to give the OP an answer to something the team should never do, and he threw a fit, LOL.

 

[cpg]

Sigh. There you go again. I didnt call your premise silly. I said it's counterproductive. It's counterproductive because you specifically said...



THIS is illogical sense the specific player being drafted is the most important part of drafting equation. You didn't like my answer and now here we are with you throwing a tantrum because I suggested the premise was misguided. But then even though I thought the premise was misguided, after I stated why I thought it was the wrong way to look at it, I did my best to respond to your question. Because after all, you did create a thread to ask that specific question.

So when I said...


That means I'm only doing it because you asked. It means I'd rather not, but since you did....I will and you called me sanctimonious for answering the question you asked, although I wholly reject the premise of it.

Damn me for trying to give you an honest answer and explaining why. When most posters haven't left a response explaining their choice, I at least tried and you called me names for it. I gave you my opinion and you called me sanctimonious. I explained why I picked the position (in a thread where you asked us to pick a position) and you said I'm trashing the position. Smh...this is pointless.

That's some grade A projecting if I've ever seen it! This is quite the victim complex you've spun yourself. You labeling me the whiner after multiple walls of text is rich.

I called it sanctimonious, because it patently was. I haven't thrown a tantrum at all, in fact, I have calmly and plainly pointed out the flaws in your logic and never once "called you names" until you tried to challenge my comprehension. I even granted that I was clumsy in my initial phrasing. Even then I took the high road until you doubled down. You're so high on your own opinion, er, WalterFootball's opinion-- that you can't just accept that your initial post smacked of some infallible take (again, not even your own) and then doubled down with some hilariously misplaced condescension. You were sanctimonious and you got called on it. This is a message board, sir, not a GM seminar.

You're absolutely right that it's pointless, since you can't craft a single paragraph without use of logical fallacy. The post was initially meant to be fun and frivolous, a point 99% of the posters here had no problem with.

 

[Super]

Can’t believe it took almost a whole page before he came up

 

[solarbear88]

At 9 I really only want to hear OT, DT, ED. Gotta pay by the pound for quality players.

 

[IceHot]

At 9, walking away with a HoFer or almost HoFer is an unrealistic expectation.

I think we should hope to walk away with a Pro-Bowler or All-Pro player regardless of position. From what I hear I dont think this draft has that at very many positions.

We need help in so many places that we should grab any player we think has that potential. Players at certain positions dont normally yield incremental* value for a top 10 pick (like C, Mike, OG, or RB) because of longevity and the positional impact on the modern game. But I dont think we should factor that in, if a high potential player is available lets take him. With the exception of LS, I think we are set there.

*Incremental value being the difference between a top tier non Pro-bowl player at a position and an above average player at the same position.