WrigleyField 22

I would have to agree, but I don't think either of these will apply. We'd probably get a 5th rounder, maybe 4th if we were lucky. And I don't think anyone on the roster will outperform him, at least not next year. I have a feeling Marinelli just gets enamored with athleticism. He was all gushy over Gaines Adams too, who never showed much on the field. Now he is raving about Anderson who has only been a disappointment since his rookie season.

In seasons which Alex Brown was the full time starter, he has gotten between 5.5 - 7 sacks, and 44-58 tackles. Just incredibly consistent. The two years he wasn't a full time starter was his rookie year in 2002 n which he had 40 tackles and 2.5 sacks, and 2007 (41, 4.5). So we can say with confidence he is likely to have at least 40/5. Why would you just give that up? For Mark Anderson and Israel Idonije?

Here's what I'd do. Keep around Alex Brown this year and give Anderson some opportunity at more playing time. If Anderson proves worthy, you have situation going forward where you have options. You could split their playing time 50/50 or go completely with the younger Anderson. I mean, who is going to be our #3 DE if we let go of Brown? Melton? I guess Idonije and Gilbert can play some DE too, but they also play DT.

Brown is one of my favorite players. They should keep him around. If they really need to free up more money for a safety, I'm sure there's other dead weight laying around that we could get rid of.

Yea Spikes was a guy I would have considered for the Ravens, but his stock has dropped too far to justify it in the 2nd. Guy is slow.

Well at this point I wish I would have went CB in round one. Anyways: Ravens select Jerome Murphy, CB, South Florida http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8ssNdLxsaxU/SlNs3RO09ZI/AAAAAAAAEkM/ac53XaKBaWE/s400/HZSUJHOMWYEGGGH.20080612142747.jpg

Rose is in playoff mode, its that simple. Oh and f Pargo.

You know what they say, "don't drink and draft."

Nice pick up, I was hoping he'd fall to the Ravens, but that would have been a big steal. At this point, there aren't going to be any good options for the Ravens at a position of need. There are a couple of really nice players falling though. I had pegged 3 who were dropping too far, and Gronkowski was one. By the way, he's from Arizona though.

Ah that was gonna be the top choice for raw and i. I think we've agreed on a fallback however. Steelers select Brandon Ghee, CB, Wake Forest http://media.gatewaync.com/wsj/photos/2008/10/16/wffb.jpg I PM'd ELCABALLO45.

You say it like "strippers on the pitcher's mound for the 7th" is a bad thing? Well presumably it would require a pole to be installed, and then we'd be even worse than the Astros.

So I don't keep track of this thread too much, so not sure if there has been much talk about the pick swap with Milwaukee. Here's a breakdown I did of the draft slots from RealGM. Okay, so theres a lot of whining going on about this pick swap. Here is a simple statistical breakdown of the 11th pick vs the 17th pick, where we may end up. Actually its the 18th pick as of today I think, but I didn't realize that until I collected all my data. Oops. It works still. And I'll admit that the 17th pick will likely look better than the 18th pick. This wasn't a bias, I swear. Anyways I tracked GP, Career PER, and All Star Appearences. I went back to 1980. 11th Pick: Avg: 560 GP, 13.9 PER, 15 All Star Appearances (none since Allan Houston 1992) 17th Pick: Avg: 375 GP, 12.25 PER, 12 All Star Appearances (JON - 5, Kemp 6, Granger 1) 1980 is a long time to go back though. There were 23 teams then. The 11th pick then was more like a 14th pick now. The 17th was more like a 22nd now. Not a huge difference. But there are other large changes. Theres a huge influx of International player. There was the high school era, followed by the NBA Age Rule. Expansion teams, etc. I chose 2002 as a cutoff date to track recent picks. Somewhat arbitrary, but I did it because that is the most veteran #11 pick still active (Jarred Jeffries). GP is an odd thing to track because it was intended as a measure of longevity, and these players are active. We'll still include it though (it may give some analysis to how quickly a player will make an impact). 11th Pick since 2002: Avg: 257 GP, 11.99 PER, 0 All Stars 17th Pick since 2002: Avg: 229 GP, 13.79 PER, 1 All Star Also since the focus on recent trends is more important I will include the averages from all picks from 11-18 (GP, PER, All Star) 11: 257, 11.99, 0 12: 191, 11.23, 0 13: 192, 12.01, 0 14: 268, 13.13, 0 15: 187, 11.85, 0 16: 181, 10.34, 0 (*note* really hurt by Troy Bell's 6 GP and -4.5PER, without him: 206, 12.46) 17: 229, 13.79, 1 18: 192, 13.9, 2 Disclaimers: I'm not saying the 18th pick is better than the 11th pick. Past results don't dictate future results. This is a very limited analysis, and in no way meant to be all encompassing. I'm not trying to defend the pick swap. But it is still damn interesting.

Yes! The Patriots are another team I could see going for Tebow. Mainly because of Belichick and the fact that they have 3 or 4 picks in the first two rounds. Agreed. Also just realized I have three 2nd rounders not just two. Man Belichick loves the draft. And I'd put money on them trading down and acquiring even more picks. I'd also put money on them taking Tebow, if he's around in the second round, and someone really good hasn't fallen.

I'd go as far to say that the stats don't mean anything. Some of these guys have only around 20 at bats. A bloop single here, or a strong line drive that was stolen can make a big difference in statistics. So I don't think the spring training stats matter at all.

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does. How so? A player who has gotten better several years in a row is likely get worse in the immediate future, and vice-versa. But in determining who is more washed up, it presents a better argument for the player who isn't getting worse. I mean, really what you're saying is that the guy on a decline has a better chance of improving because he can't get worse. The player who is putting up better results will struggle to continue to improve. I don't want to focus on Bako necessarily because it probably wasn't the best example, but FWIW, taking his whole career, hitting wise, its pretty constant suckage. Yes, we have "the book" on Bako, but his book tells us he's acceptable as a backup catcher if you don't have better options. So last year we brought him in. His and Hill's spring training wasn't the biggest deciding factor, in fact probably one of the smallest, but it still plays a roll. Also its a really small sample, but in his limited at bats last year, Bako's OPS did go up again. Millar's book tells us he was acceptable at one time, and has been pretty steadily getting worse to the point where he doesn't have value. But not focusing on these two, a pretty common spring training scenario is you have two young guys coming from AAA who are fighting over the last bullpen spot. They each have at least comparable numbers. Close enough that an argument could be made for either. And since their young, developmentally there is still a lot going on with their skills, and despite a large number of minor league stats, spring training helps to determine if either has gained an edge.

The difference between major-league quality and below replacement-level quality is not noticeable visibly at that level. Thats a load of crap. We've all watched players get noticeably better or worse in their skills at some point. We see pitchers "stuff" come and go, you see players gain or lose weight, add or lose muscle, improve their defense changes in hitting or pitching mechanics, etc. There are a ton of things that you can pick up on. The amount you can learn in a short spring training is limited, but it's part of the puzzle, and in a limited cases can help decide position battles for those last couple spots.

That fact actually implies the opposite of what you think it does. How so?

Bako OPS 06- .489 07- .534 08- .626 Millar 07- .785 08- .717 09- .674 Neither are any good, but Bako was much more washed up than Millar is. Those numbers are telling, however one is competing for a spot as a backup corner OF/If where his hitting is a big priority. As a backup catcher, its more important to see what Bako could do behind the plate. And even if you do believe those OPS numbers matter, one is trending upward, while the other is trending downward. Bako is old and all, but his numbers haven't changed much from when he was 26 and OPS'd .667. And his competition was an pretty big unknown at catcher who recently mauled his hand with a circular saw. Millar is going up against better players with fully functioning digits.

When the actual play is semi-competitive at best, sure you can. What does the level of competition have to do with how a player has declined or improved. There has to be certain skill sets that you can evaluate in a vacuum, regardless of the completion level. I mean, you could throw a cardboard cutout at the plate and be able to tell what pitcher is pitching better. Now obviously, you'll still look at past results and trends, but those trends aren't definite. A player can improve or decline their skills.

Going away from the old batter example: Say you are hypothetically trying to decide between two pitchers for the last bullpen start. And lets say they each have an equally large "book" out on them. The stats they put up aren't going to matter, but you are going to be pretty worried about how they look. While advanced stats can give great predictions on a large scale level, when it comes down to a single position battle, you can't ignore the actual play and skill level thats going on.

+1. Spring training stats don't mean anything, but it helps to check guys out who you are deciding between. Millar shouldn't e on that list of guys to decide between, but take last year with Hill vs Bako, I'm sure it was quite helpful to see how each look to make a decision. But Bako was the same thing as Millar is, a washed up vet we already have a huge book on. Bako wasn't as washed up as Millar is, IMO.

+1. Spring training stats don't mean anything, but it helps to check guys out who you are deciding between. Millar shouldn't e on that list of guys to decide between, but take last year with Hill vs Bako, I'm sure it was quite helpful to see how each look to make a decision.

I've seen Robinson rated the highest, I do believe.

FWIW, that suggestion came straight from the suggestion of Mel Kiper.

With the Browns apparently traded Wimbley to the Raiders, i prolly would take Eric Norwood .. WEll its way past 24 hours, so I don't know if dew makes the pick in this situation, but that sounds like a consensus to me, lets keep this thing moving.