Draft selection bias...

[TommyGirl]

Every year, we fight about players we think should be selected, but we rarely admit that there's a whole lot of personal bias that goes into our own wishlists. We always say that we'd choose based on need, best player on the board, etc. While that may be true, I have other biases that play into who I think would be a good fit for the team. What's yours?

Mine:

I always look at defensive ends first. I probably would've looked at defensive ends even during Howie's glory years. I love me some pass rush.

I look at safeties second. Actually the first and second are pretty close because I'm the biggest safety homer out there. I like nothing better than a smart, talented safety that can tackle and ball hawk.

Work ethic and character counts more to me than athletic ability or talent. I'm oddly taken by walk-ons that have done well, and I root for the underdog, Cinderella stories to be taken on my team.

On the other side, I hate drafting quarterbacks early. I have no real reason or statistics. I just hate doing it.

I don't like drafting wide receivers high. I'd rather get a gem in the third round or beyond. Free agency is even better.

I hate USC players.

I'll probably think of others, but that's a start.

 

[Freakshow]

My first instinct is to get the biggest "impact" player we can. Could be a bias but normally that means one of the skilled positions, hence my desire for McFadden this time around. Trench players don't do it for me in the early rounds.

I typically lean toward "name" guys too, which is another bias. Big-schools, popular players catch my eye and of course there's more information out there about them which makes me feel like an some sort of draft insider

I also tend to lean toward players I've seen play and formed some sort of affinity for, which again has no real basis on whether or not the kid can play.

But, I do feel it's necessary to remind everyone that I did finish 2nd in Lil Al last year (first-timer).

 

[hawaiianboy]

I lean towards guys I have seen a lot and could play in a scheme I prefer as if taking them will somehow force the Raiders to play the style of football I want...


I always look at LB's first because that's probably the position I'm most comfortable and confident analyzing, even though we're not a team known to put an emphasis on the position...

I look at DT's next with the preference towards the bigger John Henderson/Haloti Ngata types...

Next would be OT's with the big lean towards long types that can pull in the run game... I don't like the lead foots... Nothing was better than watching Art Shell pull across the backside to lead block and I've been influenced by that...


On the first day of the draft I prefer taking guys that were consistently productive in college... The second day I like taking chances on athleticism and upside...

 

[TommyGirl]

But, I do feel it's necessary to remind everyone that I did finish 2nd in Lil Al last year (first-timer).

Watch it.

Unlike Freakshow, I like trench players in the early rounds for some reason. Sexy picks scare me.

I don't know why I hate USC players. I like the Raiders because of Marcus Allen. I don't hate them once they play well for the Raiders. I just hate USC. Maybe it's because I like ASU. Not sure.

 

[TommyGirl]

Haha. I just read yours, Island Boy. I'm EXACTLY the same way, which is why I always lose Little Al. It's like I can only put down who *I* want and that by virtue of my will, I WILL MAKE IT SO!

 

[Crow]

I think TG should post more. She's smarter than most of you, it seems.

I'm probably the most blatant D-line jihadist around. I'm picky, though. If I hear so much as a guy's high school gym teacher accuse him of being lazy, he drops to Day 2 on "my board".

I've always been a believer in building from the inside out. If the value/talent is pretty much equal, you go DT > DE. Just makes good sense to me.


When it comes to O-line, no, I wouldn't rate a guard over a tackle. I tend to view the OL as one big, nasty looking player.

That said, I'd pay Walter Jones money for a mammoth center. Newberry is okay. But Barrett spoiled me. I miss the good old days when the only time you heard Ted Washington's or Jamal Williams' name was when they showed a replay of B-Rob sumo slamming them. Blocking scheme be damned. I would kill to have another manimal at center.


I've said once or thrice that "If you give me a pass rush and two quality safeties, I can take over the world." I still believe that. Unlike some of the lesser minds here I understand that there's a helluvalot more to a safety than being the last line of defense. Safeties are as much the key to any good defense as good corners or LBs, IMO.


Oh, and one that's come to the forefront of late, I hate divas. Hate 'em. I do not want a whiner at WR. WR, to me, is a secondary position, ranking well below O-line and RB. If the guy keeps his yap shut, catches the ball when it hits his hands, runs good routes, and blocks well, he's my guy. If he runs a 4.5 or 4.6, that just means we won't have to pay him as much or draft him as high.

Drafting WRs high is foolish, IMO. I was on the Calvin Johnson wagon because, simply put, he was the best overall prospect in the class and he was the most ridiculous WR prospect to come along in years. And, amazingly enough, there wasn't a single human being alive who said the kid had any sort of attitude or diva potential. To me, that made him the perfect WR.

But, other than CJ, drafting a WR in Rd1 means that you just don't have many other needs and there's just no value at the positions you have needs at.

For a team that needs WR help, expecting a rookie to be the answer is, again, foolish. I believe in picking up veteran WRs who can pick up the playbook quickly and who don't have a hatchet wound between their legs. Drafting a WR later on to groom behind the veteran seems to be the best way to go.

Work ethic and character counts more to me than athletic ability or talent.

Yep. To a point, of course.

Great attitude/work ethic & average talent blows average attitude/work ethic and great talent out of the water, IMO.

 

[Rupert]

I've said once or thrice that "If you give me a pass rush and two quality safeties, I can take over the world." I still believe that. Unlike some of the lesser minds here I understand that there's a helluvalot more to a safety than being the last line of defense. Safeties are as much the key to any good defense as good corners or LBs, IMO.

Most of that post is totally solid.

Wait, read that again.

Okay, you're still being quite obtuse when it comes to safeties. Here's my point on safeties. Many safeties are corners that couldn't man cover. Period. Coaches work long and hard hours to get corners developed, not so with safeties. Safeties don't have to be as athletic as corners, and to a large degree you either have the athleticism to play corner or you don't. (Ronnie Lott, possibly the greatest safety of all time, started life as a corner and only became a safety when he couldn't cut it in man coverage in the NFL)

That said, the better safeties you have, the more options you have on defense. You can use them in man coverage against guys that don't require the hips of a corner to cover them. But you can play good defense with safeties that are average or below average if your front 4 and corners are very good, provided they know the angles and can tackle.

If you play with average corners you have to play much more zone coverage. It's why I prefer to stay away from average corners. It's why I prefer very good corners over very good safeties. Lots of teams play zone defenses, they work when played well. To play them you need better safeties. You can essentially play a Tampa-2 with 4 safeties since your corners don't need to run far or trail cover or turn and burn. I hate zones, so I favor corners that can man cover, and those need to be top tier or you'll be helping someone all day, which also hurt your ability to stack the box against the run.

Just like you recognize that you don't need an all-star center, I don't think you need all-star safeties. Upgrading to one (either center or safety) is great, I just see it as more of a luxury than a priority. And when you're making hard salary cap choices (not Madden-style wish lists) you have to take some average players on the field (especially if you like taking chances in the draft).

 

[BigTron]

I want us to draft the player i would least like to see in the AFC west for the next 10 years.

I have a good friend who is a Bolts fan and he is all kinds of nervous about JaMarcus Russell. He has admitted this much to me. He said that he thought we would never have a good QB who would be here more than 2 years and he cant believe Al Davis pulled the trigger and didnt take Calvin Johnson.

 

[007]

I like playmakers early, guys who can impact a game every snap, make one play to change momentum or strike fear in opponents...

I like drafting players with high ceilings and a combination of measurables and college production. I won't shy away from the 6-1 255 pound LE who runs a 4.7, but in the end, I think the 6-7 290 pounder is going to have the bigger impact more often than not.

Im a fan of taking the key positions early; QB, LT, DE, DT.

Im a bigger fan of the Pac-10. Most of the stuff I watch is Pac 10, and I study those guys more...

I trust my eyes;I watch enough CFB to know who I think is going to be good. Im no scout, but I liked Kiwanuka when most questioned him, I liked Tatupu, Jones-Drew and Gore even though many thought they were reaches. Sure I miss on my fair share, but overall I think I hang in there pretty good.

I like taking later round chances on athletic tightends, huge defensive tackles, and agile offensive lineman.

Im not a huge fan of reaching in the first round (obviously) especially when a BPA is on the board and we go with a big need instead.

In the end, I advocate a mix of Best player availible, given that it is a relative need. For example, Minnisota should not be looking at Jamaal Charles or Mendenhall. We shouldnt have Matt Ryan on our draft board etc.

Oh yeah, and drafting Kickers is stupid. 65% of ALL kickers arent drafted. Stupid.

 

[Crossbones]

I like to draft stars -- ALL the time.

Not dong so well lately.

 

[Jack's sore libido]

(Ronnie Lott, possibly the greatest safety of all time, started life as a corner and only became a safety when he couldn't cut it in man coverage in the NFL)

I was pretty young back then, but this is the first I've ever heard that Ronnie Lott couldn't cut it as a corner in the NFL.

He made the Pro Bowl as a corner, no?

 

[Rupert]

I was pretty young back then, but this is the first I've ever heard that Ronnie Lott couldn't cut it as a corner in the NFL.

He made the Pro Bowl as a corner, no?

Careful. I said man coverage. He was supposedly too slow to stay with elite WR's back then. That was the explanation the talking heads gave in those days. San Fran wanted faster corners and Lott wasn't fast enough, Pro Bowls or not. The talk was he made a lot of his plays based upon his smarts because he lacked the speed. San Fran wanted to make the change while he was still in his prime so he could make the transition. They obviously knew what they were doing.

 

[Raider Bill]

You can never have enough guys to get after the QB IMO.

It's much easier to defend the pass while the thing is still in the QB's hand.

 

[Crow]

words...

Anything relevant to the topic you'd like to add?

 

[Rupert]

I did quite a while back chum, you just weren't reading, as usual.

 

[Chris_77]

I don't know jack when it comes to the nuances of evaluating college talent so I depend in large part on what I read from others. Regarding positional preference… I’m with the Safety/DT crowd for no other reason than it seems the better defenses are usually strong in those areas. Strength up the middle sounds good to me.

 

[Limee]

I hate USC players.

Fair comment.

I also tend to lean toward players I've seen play

I agree. I don't know why but I feel more comfortable taking players I have seen a few times.

I don't know why I hate USC players.

I don't think you need a reason.

I also agree with building from the lines out. Slight bias towards defense over offense but I think if you can dominate the line on both sides of the ball then providing the skill players don't screw up and turn the ball over you should be in a very strong position.

That said, I'd pay Walter Jones money for a mammoth center. Newberry is okay. But Barrett spoiled me.

I loved the Raider tradition at center, Otto, Dalby, Mosebar and Robbins. The fact that the position has been a mess post Robbins is just another painful blow we have had to suffer these past few years.

 

[Crow]

So is it safe to assume that you'd be as giddy as me if we came out of this draft with a stud DT (or 3) and a brute center?

I did quite a while back chum, you just weren't reading, as usual.

Your posts are usually pretty easy to overlook.

 

[Limee]

I would be happy with that.

 

[Raider Nation]

I figured I'd post this in the correct thread now that the message board Gestapo (hb and Crow) have outed me. Maybe I should correct that... not the Gestapo, more like the CHIPs version of message board justice. HB with his sweet 80s basketball shorts that just hang below the cleft and Crow with his aviators sunglass and jean cutoffs (standard Mississippi Law Enforcement dress).

I like skill position players (RB, WR, CB, S) from the SEC and prefer to have the offensive line manned from the Big-10 and Big-12 as I think the offensive line play in that conference is superior. I like LBs that are heavier on production than athletic ability (see Kirk Morrison).

I don't have a particular position fetish (aside from reverse cowgirl) but I will say that I prefer big & fast WRs over the Johnnie Lee Higgens type. I'll take a guy that's 6'3" and runs a 4.55 over a guy that's 5'11" and runs a 4.4 every time.