I'm not seeing where exactly you excluded injury in the initial "calculation." Listen, you threw out a bullshit "one in ten 2nd round rookies start" to begin this argument, I called you on it. Then you modified what you meant by "starter" (opening day starters who always started when healthy!) to justify the "10%." Then you modified the initial "10%" by settling at a "21%" and once more modified "starter" (opening day starters who played the entire season, period!) And now I believe you're going to modify "2nd round" to "lower second round," right? I'm going to drop this, but only because "your surefire is offbase" confuses me more than your constant criteria changes.
It's not different, but that's not why you named safeties as examples. I was bringing up an example of the Jets drafting a corner early with 2 starting corners solidified - and apparently you could only come up with 2 corners that remotely filled that description off the top of your head, so you decided to add 2 more positions into the mix. By the way, Phillips was brought in to compete for the starting spot - the Giants actually had a vacancy at the position when they drafted him. As far as the continuing examples you are giving - the Steelers' 2 starting corners were Ike Freaking Taylor and Deshea Townsend. Are you calling that solid? And the Colts drafting cornerbacks in rounds 1 and 2 tell you that they were comfortable with their starters? These are not good examples. The Jets were spoken of as having the best cornerback tandem in the league before the draft even happened. That can't be even intimated with any of the examples you provided. But... I don't want to turn this thread into a cornerbacks debate, or a safety debate by extension, so I'll let you have your retort and let people get back to the subject of how Slauson will win out in TC because, even from the mouth of his predecessor, he has been groomed for the position.
And I've admitted my 1 in 10 was a low estimate I made in error off of a rough shot and quick glance, my error was that I was about 1/2 off. As for the need to throw out the opening day starter, that's what this whole thread is about is who STARTS, it shouldn't have to be re-itereated to anyone above an IQ of 30 that the inferred argument is for who starts, I mean for Christs sake the person who started the thread and poll stated, and I quote, "Who would you rather see start opening day? "...that's pretty damned obvious isn't it? or are you truly that cluesless? Infact you yourself said your second round pick is a starter....Now if you were saying he'd start at some point in the season I'd probably agree with you, however this discussion isn't about who will start somewhere in the season, it's about who will START the season as the starter, and if you actually bothered to read anything you'd know that. Additionally you continue to try and slant what was actually said to try to "benefit your argument, but I'll cut you some slack and contribute it to a general lack of ability to comprehend. I broke down EVERY OL taken in the first round for the past 10 years, and stated a high number of 39% for players who started atleast 13 games, 3/4 of an NFL season and a low number of 21% for players who started all 16 games, not a futher modified argument just presenitng statistical percentages based off of games started, which has been the whole point of the debate in this thread, who starts on open day. On your 5 year call only 11 out of 26, or 42% started as many as 12 games, how many of those were actually opening day starters who lost their jobs, I don't know, and frankly at this point don't care enough to check. I made one error and admitted it, you continue to error and fail to recognize it. Good luck man, and do the world a favor, work on your abilty to actually comprehend what's being discussed and not what the voices in your head are saying, Okay son of sam?
Reading comprehension smack coupled with a schizophrenia dig. You're puling out all the stops aren't you, sport? 13 games isn't 3/4 of a season. 12 games is 3/4 of season. I know that because we schizos are real sharp at math. So why did you make your cut-off "13 games?" Because if you'd made it "12 games" (3/4 of an NFL season in the Old Math) you would have had to reveal that well over 50% of rookies in the same data pool started that often. That would make you look silly. Well... sillier. Let's simplify it. Run along and look up the percentage of second round rookie linemen who started for their team on opening day. Before Lost starts, please. Chop, chop.
ROFL, you really do suffer a lack of comprehension don't you, I pointed out every player who even had 12 starts, and pointed out most if not all that had 11 starts, damn your fucking stupid. but you want your "50%" aka that adds a total of 3 players to the total pool, that's right 3. Even adding those 3 players in would raise the most extreme end to 45%, and most of those 45% were top half the second round, not the bottom half of the second round. But you see, when it's pointed out your whole argument is crap you just try to reframe it..... But your right 12 games is 3/4 of the season, 13 games would be starting over 3/4 of your games, which considering that the WHOLE debate is about being a starter from opening day if you can't play 1 game over 3/4 you musta had some holes to work on before hand. But I guess when your whole argument has gone to hell your only choice is to ignore what the debate is really about and go off on your own tangit. What color is the sky in your world? Just curious, cause man your in a world all your own.
Damn the fucking stupid that belongs to you, JCotchrocket! I'm also trying to figure out how you own "in a world all your own". 1968jetsfan has made me realize that you are an impressive man, JCotchrocket.
Chop Chop stats delivered, over the past 10 years second round OL that started the first game of the season was 23 out of 51, 3 of those starts were in place of injured regulars who returned in weeks 2-4 replacing the opening day "starter". So even if you include the 3 who started due to injuries or suspensions to the regular starter at the position the total percentage of 2nd rounders over 10 years who started the opening day game is 45%, if you exclude the ones who started due to an injury to the position regular (aka lost their job totally after the regular returned) that number drops to 39%. But even at the 45% mark, since technically they did start the season despite not actually winning the position, it's still far short of your "well over 50%" infact it doesn't even reach 50% under the most optimal of circumstances and doesn't break 40% under the last optimal for your argument. So again, despite you claim of being a sure thing, it's not even a 50/50 shot under the BEST of circumstances.
The summary of 1968jetsfan's argument for those too lazy or busy to read his posts: Begin with randomly acquired statistics, which are stated as fact. Note the use of "starting the first year" rather than "starting the first game": Modify argument when called on it: Modify argument yet again to include # of starts when AGAIN called on it. Continue to fail to reach original projection of 10%: Make further excuses which have nothing to do with original statement or use of statistics: Return to 2nd original statement, not to be confused with Original Original OG Statement: Again return to randomly stated "Rule of 13, the new 3/4 of 16". Insist it is not a further modified argument despite the fact it is a further modified argument. Change debate of thread again from opening day starter to games started, then change mind again mid-sentence and revert to opening day starter: Admit offhandedly that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to your fact checking: Abandon 1st round. Shift argument to 2nd round. Continue to fail to reach original projection of "10%": The BEST of circumstances = the best you get after I apply the worst I have.
I'm not sure what your point is about the corners anyway. Your writing and thinking are very unclear and you keep leaving Pollockesque sprays of word vomit on the board every time you post. I _think_ your point is that Ducasse's high draft status doesn't mean that the Jets think they need to start him because the Jets are the best team ever and they drafted another player that doesn't project as a first year starter in Wilson, but since you never articulated those thoughts in a clear way, I can't be sure about it. Could you explain? Try and use small words and short sentences, it will help you be clearer. If you want to believe that Slauson is likely to be a good starter despite the information in this thread, so be it. It only shows that you're a mindless fanboy who completely lacks objectivity about the Jets and/or has very limited knowledge about football. EVERY team has late round picks they hand selected and are grooming. EVERY team has draft picks who come from schools with similar terminology and schemes. EVERY team blows smoke up reporters/fan's asses saying that so and so is developing nicely. But in the end almost none of these players pan out.
Both of these kids are totally unproven. Look at a list of EVERY team's draft class, how many guys from the 1st round down never made it in the league (see-Vernon G). Ducasse is raw and would do much better playing behind a verteran like, say, Faneca! Still don't get that. Maybe we can sign a vet that gets released for insurance.
as a real response to the original thought of the thread, here is something I found on the Jets Website, and in reading this, I think it will be Vlad the Impaler " from National Football Post’s Wes Bunting. Having served as NFP’s national director of scouting since 2002, in an article titled “The Best Round Two Picks,” Bunting delivered a nice scouting report on Vladi Ducasse: We know the physical skill set is there for this guy to be one of the better guards in the NFL. He’s powerful, fluid, displays nice overall bend in his lower half and can drive defenders off the football. The only question is: How quickly until he’s ready? My answer: The season opener. When watching Ducasse at this year’s Senior Bowl, it was amazing how quickly he adjusted to the speed of the game despite struggling early in the week at guard and tackle vs. any kind of inside move. As the week went on, however, we saw him get comfortable and trust his skill set, which resulted in an impressive game at left tackle. He isn’t going to play the blind side in the pros, but the point is, there was a lot of improvement from this guy in only one week. If given an opportunity to submerge himself in some good NFL coaching — which he’ll be getting from Bill Callahan — the sky’s the limit for this kid."
Ha ha, funny stuff, again this thread and the entire debate has been about WHO starts the season, it shouldn't be necessary to repeat that fact for anyone with an IQ over 60. First round argument is moot point as Vlad was not a first round pick, he was a late second round pick so any first round discussion is a moot point and completely irrelavant to the discussion. I admitted having made an error with the 10% on second round picks, and corrected that error and backed it up with documentable evidence there after, my first report was sloppy and I have admitted that. However, yourself and Crotchrocket continue to focus on the initial error to try to distract from the accuracy of the corrected information. Crotchrocket continues to claim well over 50% of second round picks were opening day starters when the facts are even with the most lenient of interpetations that number only rises to 44 or 45%, and that requires using players who started on opening day to cover for an injury or suspension to the player who actually won the spot, instead of having won the job themselves. That would be akin to caliling David Clowney our opening day reciever because of the Holmes suspension, yes he would technically be our opening day receiver (if that is indeed the case that it's him selected to play in Holmes place) but you really can't in all honesty say he was anything but a replacement for the suspended reciever. BTW how long have you and Jcrotchrocket been going out?
And the worst that I had was still as accurate as the best that you or Crotch have provided.... Case closed.
Then why in the world did you bother engaging in any other discussion? What's with the breakdowns according to games started if the entire debate was merely who starts the season? Why use diction to convey an entirely different meaning in your original post and then jump all over the poster who responded to the terms you used rather than your hidden intent? Wrong. I focused on every error and logical drift you made. They were numerous. Who the fuck cares? You're bringing in every possible excuse you can dig up simply to make yourself look better...and it's failing. Does your own self esteem suffer so much that you need the difference between 50% and 45% to suddenly take on some increased significance? I'm sorry, I didn't know there were distinctions between the different varieties of "opening day receiver". If the argument has consistently remained "who starts opening day", then conditions should have nothing to do with that rather easily empirically answered question. If David Clowney were our opening day receiver, then yes, I would call him our opening day receiver. I would not call him our perpetual starter if that weren't his role, but again, you insist that the argument is simply "who starts opening day"...at least until it fails to serve your needs. Ad hominem attacks don't change the fact that he completely and entirely owned you with one post, and you've spent the rest of the time tightening your own shackles. I don't give two shits about JCotchrocket. I give a shit when someone continues to make absolutely retarded arguments, as you have throughout this thread.
See? You're perfectly capable of making a relevant and well thought out argument. Why waste your time on the other drivel you've posted?
I didn't change the focus, JCrotchrocket changed the focus. I merely addressed it. I did make an error with the 10%, I didn't research and double check as well as I normally do, I admitted it and I moved on with better researched and verified statistics. The simple fact remains second round picks are far from the shoe in that JC claimed, his claims that well over 50% of second round OL start, one that he has repeatedly stuck to, are quite frankly not supported by the facts. The difference between myself and JC is that when I make a mistake I own up to it and correct it, meanwhile you and he continue to focus on the original error and ignore the backed up and corrected data. That's a tactic typically called misdirection, Politicians use it all the time, as do magicians, in an attempt to draw focus away from what is really there and try to frame it in a different light by focusing on obsolete data that was later corrected but the corrections are ignored or called "flip flops". my argument against Vlad starting has always remained the same. The side argument was brought up by the statemenet of Jcrotch that a second round pick is ALWAYS your starter, when the fact is it's not even the case 1/2 the time at the start of the season under even the most lenient of interpetations of starting.
