joeknows Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 ok i have a question... with the NFL draft... the worst teams get the highest picks. this, i understand as it helps those bad teams acquire talent that probably wouldnt sign to a losing organization otherwise. so here is my question... we see many top draft picks that never live up to their potential. is it possible that if they are being drafted to losing organizations, that maybe they are being ruined by these losing organizations? we see it time and time again these top picks go to really bad teams and they never produce, much less, produce as expected. then you get Brady, a low pick who goes to a great organization in NE and he becomes a future HOF'er. <yes i know this is an extreme example> so, is it possible that the draft system is actually ruining careers? PS if this in wrong forum, i apologize, please move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UltimateSkins Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I think players either have it or they don't. Eventually talent and work ethic will prevail whether the team is good or bad. I think a lot of players take pride in being able to turn bad teams around and would rather be the face of a young up and coming team then just another good player on one that is already winning. It's always possible that a team could completely misuse a player, but I think doesn't happen too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted August 8, 2011 Author Share Posted August 8, 2011 my point being that if i have a kid that excels at something, im going to surround that kid with the most successful and talented people i can in order to spur some growth. it just seems that maybe the current draft system could actually be counterproductive to talent growth in the league as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaSkinsNut Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Not really. There are so few examples of major busts living up to pre draft hype when changing teams that it more likely comes down to bad teams doing a poor job of talent evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolio47 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Probably a combination of both the teams doing a poor evaluating job and the player simply not being up to snuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted August 8, 2011 Author Share Posted August 8, 2011 I think players either have it or they don't. Eventually talent and work ethic will prevail whether the team is good or bad. I think a lot of players take pride in being able to turn bad teams around and would rather be the face of a young up and coming team then just another good player on one that is already winning. It's always possible that a team could completely misuse a player, but I think doesn't happen too often. i agree and disagree. i agree work ethic and talent usually prevail. however, it helps you prevail amongst your peers. sure you look good amongst your team of suck. but if the system is bad, ie. bad schemes... bad culture... etc... then wouldnt that be detrimental to overall development? like for example... if say we or even the raiders get quality draft picks. do we really have the culture in our systems that will allow premium growth for such talent? in our case i say yes ... now... only because of the Shannys. but to have brought in a top 5 pick under a Zorn ran team could very well kill that kids career just because of his first experiences in the league. dont forget these young men being drafted in many ways are just big kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hfmonk Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 There are big time 1st round QB busts on good teams that can drag a team down with them....See Heath Shuler... There are players that refuse to perform on any team that can drag a team down....Deion, Trotter, Haynesworthless, McPuke(he just cant hold it in when the 4th quarter of big games come), and a host of others. It isn't the team that's bad, it is the performance of the players. Players should not be allowed to be prima donnas. The only problem with drafting is the money spent on unproven players that end up busts because they think they put in the hours in college and now they can ease their way into a fat contract and be lazy for 6 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truant Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I think the OP is actually pretty astute here. When a player has an opportunity to learn from the best in the business and play with the best in the business, surely that can help a player achieve success. You see it with free agents all the time. Thomas Jones was a bust in Arizona. People felt he shouldn't even be in the league. Then he goes to Chicago and resurrects his career and now he's a back who's had a tremendously long career. Randy Moss was "done" in Oakland. Then he goes to New England and sets the TD record for WRs. Brandon Lloyd bounces around from team to team and then explodes in a good system. Mike Williams in Seattle etc. Football is about 11 guys doing their job. Just one person missing an assignment can have disastrous results. A shoddy offensive line can ruin any QB or RB, let alone a first or second year player. Better teams, teams with continued success, can nurture young players and not only tell them how it's done, but show them. Additionally, many high pick rookies are seen as saviors for the bad teams that pick them. When a young player is drafted to a team like the Colts, they are brought in to learn and fill a role. This helps keep the pressure of the player and allows them to build on success instead of losing confidence by failing to meet unrealistic expectations. The Bengals, Lions, Cardinals, etc were notorious for having bad draft classes, but we've seen players that were labelled as busts change locations and perform far better. Is this always due to going to a better team/situation? No. Surely in some cases the player re-dedicated themselves. But I'd guess that bad situations can have a severely negative impact on many young players' careers. To sum up... I think it does play a factor. Some players are undeniably talented and will succeed in the face of a terrible franchise. But a healthy environment can help a young player meet their potential. Are there busts from great teams? Definitely. But I believe going to a better team with successful players and coaches is a valuable asset for rookies to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKM311 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 No. First off, it is very easy to do research on this. Simply look at the amount of busts in the top 10 vs. quality players. That should answer your question to an extent. Second, Brian Orakpo was drafted under Zorn and had his best year as a rookie. Great players will be great players. The team will still lose if the organization isn't running correctly. But the great player will still be great. Look at NA at the Raiders (now with the Eagles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 ok i have a question... with the NFL draft... the worst teams get the highest picks. this, i understand as it helps those bad teams acquire talent that probably wouldnt sign to a losing organization otherwise.so here is my question... we see many top draft picks that never live up to their potential. is it possible that if they are being drafted to losing organizations, that maybe they are being ruined by these losing organizations? we see it time and time again these top picks go to really bad teams and they never produce, much less, produce as expected. then you get Brady, a low pick who goes to a great organization in NE and he becomes a future HOF'er. <yes i know this is an extreme example> so, is it possible that the draft system is actually ruining careers? PS if this in wrong forum, i apologize, please move. Brady is not a good example for you. Before Brady, NE was actually a below average club. Brady is a part of the example of how the right players and the right coach(s) coming together at the right time is pretty much the only way to rebuild a team. In any case, there is a bit of a negative value for a very talented player going to a bad club or solid player going to a good club. A good club offers a solid environment in which work ethic is more easily built and a good environment is a requirement to develop most level talent (there is some talent that can excel and grow even in a bad environment). Although not an easy task, work ethic can be taught but at the NFL level, you either got the talent or you don't. Thing is, many top-level talents coming out of college got by primarily on their talent and/or had a solid environment to learn how to work hard. On bad teams, you may not have people that you must really work hard to beat out, you may think you are working hard, but your not. You do not see a payoff for your hard work. Most people will just start doing the minimums (or worse) when that happens or maybe just get frustrated and depressed which is likely to get externalized by NFL-quality talent (making them known as troublemakers). They may even go so far as to lose their passion for the game and begin to see it as just a paycheck (or worse). Further, football is a TEAM sport, so bad play by another does negatively effect your performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted August 8, 2011 Author Share Posted August 8, 2011 There are big time 1st round QB busts on good teams that can drag a team down with them....See Heath Shuler...There are players that refuse to perform on any team that can drag a team down....Deion, Trotter, Haynesworthless, McPuke(he just cant hold it in when the 4th quarter of big games come), and a host of others. It isn't the team that's bad, it is the performance of the players. Players should not be allowed to be prima donnas. The only problem with drafting is the money spent on unproven players that end up busts because they think they put in the hours in college and now they can ease their way into a fat contract and be lazy for 6 seasons. 1. Shuler was on a redskins team that sucked and was entering a 20 yr period of suck. he didnt make the team suck... they already did. 2. deion performed everywhere else didnt he? trotter performed elsewhere..... haynesworth, well he is altogether another story.in the cases of the other two, deion was getting old and worn and we got what we deserved for signing a former cowboy. trotter and a few others have had success elsewhere in the league. why couldnt they here? there is more to team than individual efforts combined. 3. Mcpuke kinda in a way proves my point. he was successful elsewhere, comes to an ill matched organization and he fails. < i hate to say it but i expect him to be pretty good in minny> 4 there is a lot when it comes to referring to team. we can look at stats etc but there are intangibles,... dedication, camaraderie, schemes fitting player abilities etc....these ALL affect the performance of the players. 5. players should NOT be allowed to be prima donnas .... AGREED 6. i agree with your view on draft and money for unproven players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper 21 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 it may, but i would hate to watch anything where good teams got better while bad teams stayed worse. like baseball hahha jk, dont kill me baseball fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sellersfan Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 To counter the Brady example given by the OP, the Colts were terrible, and then got Manning. I would suggest bad teams dont invest enough in scouting, which leads to failure. Look at the lack of investment the Skins have made in the scouting department the past decade. The bad teams will draft poorly, and the guys they do pick are set up for failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beans Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Bad teams can ruin careers. Does anybody believe that if Brady was drafted by the Browns or Bengals his mark would be nothing more than some obscure trivia material? Some players are talented enough to turn a team around (see Manning, Peyton). Some need a system and a supporting cast. New England's offense runs like clockwork. Matt Cassel, a guy that hadn't played since high school, had a 10 win season (i think that's right). I think some of the difficulty for adjusting rookies is the stubborness of some coaches and their unbreakable will to not deviate from "their system" to get the most out of the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 it may, but i would hate to watch anything where good teams got better while bad teams stayed worse. like baseball hahha jk, dont kill me baseball fans I'm a HUGE baseball fan and I agree with you here. I wish baseball made more of an effort to keep things on a level playing field. Revenue sharing is no longer a valid argument, as most owners just pocket that money. But I digress about baseball and save it for the tailgate... It's definitely an interesting point. Would Jamahcus Russell have been great if he was drafted by the Patriots? I mean, he IS a great player, so get over it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 To counter the Brady example given by the OP, the Colts were terrible, and then got Manning.I would suggest bad teams dont invest enough in scouting, which leads to failure. Look at the lack of investment the Skins have made in the scouting department the past decade. The bad teams will draft poorly, and the guys they do pick are set up for failure. ok i admit brady was a bad example... all i could come up with at the moment.i argue though that brady was brought into a franchise that had many other pieces in place and he was in the wait mode while being groomed. there will always be thosde guys that go somewhere and make it better through leadership and work ethic. someone stated that they believe that there are more examples of top picks being successful than low picks. in the extremes of those picks i am inclined to agree to some extent however, i think it safe to assume that the guys that have had more to do with success and stability of organizations come from mid rounds and are picked by the more stable and successful organizations in the league. i agree bad teams pick poorly, but we have seen time and time again some kid get hyped and hyped and hyped... goes to a bad team with a real need for his talent at that position. then they end up labled as a bust because the team never peroforms and they dont either after leaving that team. did they not perform later because there initial experience in the league was with a franchise that might be in such a state that it doesnt give the kid a realistic perception of what being successful in the NFL is really about? and through bad training and poor leadership their skills may actually regress rather than grow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaimeDeCurry Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 This guy seems to be doing okay, for going to a team that won 2 games the year before he was drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 i guess my point is.... maybe the draft system is more detrimental in growing talent for the league as a whole, than it is beneficial for the teams acquiring the players with the most potential. i dont pretend to know the alternative.... it was just something i was considering while reading so much about our rookies and draft picks. ---------- Post added August-8th-2011 at 07:19 PM ---------- when you guys use a first year player as an example it doesnt prove your point at all. sometimes it can take a little time for a bad culture to affect a talented kid. they continue to perform in a first year in spite of the bad organization. but because the organization is their entire world, it often wins out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Bad teams can ruin careers.Does anybody believe that if Brady was drafted by the Browns or Bengals his mark would be nothing more than some obscure trivia material? Some players are talented enough to turn a team around (see Manning, Peyton). Some need a system and a supporting cast. New England's offense runs like clockwork. Matt Cassel, a guy that hadn't played since high school, had a 10 win season (i think that's right). I think some of the difficulty for adjusting rookies is the stubborness of some coaches and their unbreakable will to not deviate from "their system" to get the most out of the roster. Thing is, even Manning had a good supporting cast. In his rookie year, he had one of the best all-round RBs, a blue-chip WR and a solid, though not spectacular offensive line. The team was pretty bad in 1998 but having a bad year was, then, heavily rewarded with as easy a schedule as could be made. He also led the team to its first big year when the Bills had their last hurrah, Jimmy Johnson's Marino lead Dolphins were about to have the wheels come off and the Pats were fading hard. Even though Peyton is very, very good, winning is what breeds more winning, even though that "winning" does not necessarily show (1998) up in the win column and you got to do some digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRookie Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I think there's some truth in the OP. On the flip side, I guess you could also make the case that great teams make bad players look better than they really are. Or maybe that even good teams can ruin good players if, among other talented players, they can't get the playing time to really showcase what they can do. If that's the case, I think there's some give and take. Ultimately, as others have said, I think good players will sink or swim based on their performance. Even on most bad teams, I would say that the coaches are talented enough to tell who's pulling their weight and whose not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jericho Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I think players either have it or they don't. Eventually talent and work ethic will prevail whether the team is good or bad. I think a lot of players take pride in being able to turn bad teams around and would rather be the face of a young up and coming team then just another good player on one that is already winning. It's always possible that a team could completely misuse a player, but I think doesn't happen too often. This. I do think systems can help players shine. So a player can certainly shine better in different systems. Plus, part of it is probably perception. Certain guys look better than they are just by being surrounded by other good players. But I don't expect huge radical differences. For example, I don't think Ryan Leaf or Jamarcus Russell would become Pro Bowlers on the right team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beans Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Thing is, even Manning had a good supporting cast. In his rookie year, he had one of the best all-round RBs, a blue-chip WR and a solid, though not spectacular offensive line. The team was pretty bad in 1998 but having a bad year was, then, heavily rewarded with as easy a schedule as could be made. He also led the team to its first big year when the Bills had their last hurrah, Jimmy Johnson's Marino lead Dolphins were about to have the wheels come off and the Pats were fading hard. Even though Peyton is very, very good, winning is what breeds more winning, even though that "winning" does not necessarily show (1998) up in the win column and you got to do some digging. totally agree that "winning breeds more winning". I think 90% of football players on an NFL roster can be superstars, it comes down to how bad do you want it. Most draftees are super talented and are great athletes, and then there's Rabach... Some teams have that "want it" culture, some don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I think the OP is really on to something there, and I think its pretty short-sighted to dismiss it. Lets face it, what team a draft pick goes to DOES effect their chance to succeed. At the least, everyone would admit it effects it for the years they are on that team. I.E., if a QB goes to the Lions, he has less chance to succeed with a bad offensive line and poor receivers. Also, if he is poorly coached, he may lose confidence, develop poor habits, or just not grow. If he is then traded to the Colts after 4 years, even if there was no lasting damage, at the least anyone would have to admit it would then take another 2-3 years of coaching him to turn him into who he should be. Thats 6-7 years instead of 2-3 years. But if his mechanics are messed up by a bad coach, no other team may give him a shot. Remember, these are human beings, not statistical robots. Human beings can get messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 I think the OP is really on to something there, and I think its pretty short-sighted to dismiss it. Lets face it, what team a draft pick goes to DOES effect their chance to succeed. At the least, everyone would admit it effects it for the years they are on that team. I.E., if a QB goes to the Lions, he has less chance to succeed with a bad offensive line and poor receivers. Also, if he is poorly coached, he may lose confidence, develop poor habits, or just not grow. If he is then traded to the Colts after 4 years, even if there was no lasting damage, at the least anyone would have to admit it would then take another 2-3 years of coaching him to turn him into who he should be. Thats 6-7 years instead of 2-3 years. But if his mechanics are messed up by a bad coach, no other team may give him a shot. Remember, these are human beings, not statistical robots. Human beings can get messed up. this is EXACTLY what im getting at...... ty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I think the OP is partly onto something - I remember Archie Manning for example - a great player on a lousy team - but talent will out . Most of the reason why players flame out is because they have all the physical talent but lack the work ethic, hunger , leadership or intelligence to really get what it takes to succeed . Players can be miscast and sometimes you see players thrive in new environments and or fail that because they are in a position where they are comfortable or uncomfortable with what they are asked to do . And you can take people like Trotter who was so limited in athleticism all he was good for was the downhill MLB play that fitted the JJ philly scheme, when we asked him to do more of a read and react scheme he simply was unable to do it . Sometimes people flourish late on as they get rudely awakened by suddenly finding themselves unwanted and having to fight for a job with camp scrubs . And personally I think the cossetted nature of a lot of these football *stars* at collage and pro level doesn't help . Successful players for big collage teams get preferential treatment where people have been bending over backwards for them all their lives and all of a sudden they are expected to be professional athletes and some don't get it . You look at HB Blades and Henson two fringe players on our team - when outside talent is brought instead of rising to the challenge they threw their toys out the pram on twitter which really makes me wonder what our locker room leaders are teaching people . What makes me uncomfortable with threads and ideas like this is it absolving people of personal responsibility and kind of spitting in the face of the self motivated players who really work to be successful where ever they are selected .... giving people an excuse to fail means people will fail . Sure you can be in a situation where things just don't click but that is no reason not to try and make it work . I mentioned Archie Manning - but despite the horrible teams he was on he was the one bright spot - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.