As the years go by I find myself more and more interested in the nfl draft to the point that I now love it nearly as much as games during the regular season. I just do, I can't help it, even though I still don't watch a lot of college ball.
So something I find really odd and I am going to put it out there. Maybe some will think it an obvious and dumb question, but here goes anyway. Do you guys think there is ever any gamesmanship on the part of the players about what teams they want to play for? I know the "common belief" is that prospects just want to shoot for being picked as high as they can regardless of all else because the stakes are just too high.
Then you have Foster for example who according to some teams they took him off their board because of his shoulder. Think about that for a moment. Took one of the best LB prospects this decade off their board, because of what they think is going on in his shoulder, yet here some weeks later I am seeing him catching passes in coverage like drills and he looks natural and pain free. No movement restrictions etc. How, with science being what it is today, can medical opinions vary so completely without the player influencing those opinions? It just makes ZERO sense to me that several of the very best medical professionals in their field would have such differing views if based on the same MRI's cat scans etc. alone. Is medicine that much of a crap shoot in 2017, or did Foster influence those opinions little?
Obviously in the past you have had some players who have come out and said it, don't draft me. You have to believe strong player biases have to play a lot more of a part than what is made known to the public. With young people feeling more and more entitled you have to believe it plays a part, I am just curious to what degree.
There are 245 users in the forums
NFL draft prospects question in general.
Jun 5, 2017 at 8:53 PM
- WINiner
- Veteran
- Posts: 15,645
Jun 6, 2017 at 7:04 AM
- Giedi
- Veteran
- Posts: 32,246
To a certain extent top flight can't miss blue-chippers do have some control over where they go. Elway didn't want to play for the Colts and said to Irsay, "don't draft me, I ain't playing for you" and he didn't and he was traded to the Bronco's shortly after (I think) he was drafted by the Colts. Same with Steve Young - he went to the USFL instead of the NFL. Bo Jackson (somebody correct me if I'm mistaken) decided to opt for Baseball because he didn't want to be drafted by the team that was interested in him. Lesser talented players don't have much of a choice, and if those players start to manipulate the draft via medical issues - it could backfire on them.
Jun 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM
- theduke85
- Veteran
- Posts: 3,742
Originally posted by WINiner:This is an interesting question. It's easy to say "LOL, the 49ers medical staff is a joke!", but I find it hard to believe they are incompetent and a liability to the degree that some insist.
Then you have Foster for example who according to some teams they took him off their board because of his shoulder. Think about that for a moment. Took one of the best LB prospects this decade off their board, because of what they think is going on in his shoulder, yet here some weeks later I am seeing him catching passes in coverage like drills and he looks natural and pain free. No movement restrictions etc. How, with science being what it is today, can medical opinions vary so completely without the player influencing those opinions? It just makes ZERO sense to me that several of the very best medical professionals in their field would have such differing views if based on the same MRI's cat scans etc. alone. Is medicine that much of a crap shoot in 2017, or did Foster influence those opinions little?
I think about it like this: suppose a 4th round prospect has, say, a 20% chance of being "successful" in the NFL. You're Trent Baalke. You draft a would-be 2nd round pick in the 4th round after he dropped because of an ACL injury. Baalke effectively says, "our doctors are confident he'll make a full recovery after a redshirt year." Fast forward three years. The player doesn't amount to anything.
A lot of people will look at that and say "wasted pick" or "another botched project by the medical staff". Is it really? Statistically, a 4th round pick only has a 20% chance of being successful. Even if he was rehabilitated perfectly, the odds of him succeeding are still low. Getting a second round talent is good (higher upside), but him taking a year off stunts development. The point is, it's too easy to scapegoat injuries/gambles as the reason for a pick failing. Picks are inherently unlikely to succeed.
Let me move on to this, RE: Foster. I think different teams are willing to take different risks. Let's say Foster's shoulder is a bit of an unknown. The 49ers staff says, "we're confident he won't need surgery, but it's a possibility." The 49ers as a non-contender are in a better position to absorb a blow like missing-a-year-from-shoulder-surgery than, say, the Patriots or Seahawks. Those team have contention windows, so they need fast return on investments. This is what I believe helped Foster free fall once he started to hit the mid-late teens. I'm not saying those teams don't plan for the future, but they are more likely to make win-now moves (Seattle trading a first for Graham, Pats trading a first for Cooks, etc).
Jun 6, 2017 at 3:51 PM
- eastcoast49ersfan
- Veteran
- Posts: 4,054
Why would Foster lie to some teams about his medical concerns but not lie to the 49ers? We're arguably the least talented team in the league (according to Vegas at least). If he was trying to game the system, wouldn't he try to end up on a good team if he's going to fall to the late first/early 2nd round?
Foster probably would have gone in the top 10 or top 15 picks without injury or character concerns. I don't think he was ever going to go top 5 even if he was clean off the field and in the medical check. Having shoulder surgery pushes him down a bit, especially because there were stories spread that the surgery "didn't take" and he may not make it through his rookie season. He was also sent home from the combine after getting into an altercation at the hospital. Those concerns were enough to drop him to 31. A lot of teams probably took him off their board day 1, but would have taken him in the 2nd round.
I don't think the medical reports varied that much for different teams. Character concerns and the injury risk were enough to drop him on certain teams' boards. I would bet a lot of teams had him ranked in the 25-50 range on their overall boards with similar views on his medical concerns. I agree with theduke too - some teams have different needs or are contenders now, making them less likely to select a linebacker with injury concerns.
Foster probably would have gone in the top 10 or top 15 picks without injury or character concerns. I don't think he was ever going to go top 5 even if he was clean off the field and in the medical check. Having shoulder surgery pushes him down a bit, especially because there were stories spread that the surgery "didn't take" and he may not make it through his rookie season. He was also sent home from the combine after getting into an altercation at the hospital. Those concerns were enough to drop him to 31. A lot of teams probably took him off their board day 1, but would have taken him in the 2nd round.
I don't think the medical reports varied that much for different teams. Character concerns and the injury risk were enough to drop him on certain teams' boards. I would bet a lot of teams had him ranked in the 25-50 range on their overall boards with similar views on his medical concerns. I agree with theduke too - some teams have different needs or are contenders now, making them less likely to select a linebacker with injury concerns.
Jun 14, 2017 at 7:17 PM
- Dman11
- Veteran
- Posts: 169
Originally posted by Giedi:
To a certain extent top flight can't miss blue-chippers do have some control over where they go. Elway didn't want to play for the Colts and said to Irsay, "don't draft me, I ain't playing for you" and he didn't and he was traded to the Bronco's shortly after (I think) he was drafted by the Colts. Same with Steve Young - he went to the USFL instead of the NFL. Bo Jackson (somebody correct me if I'm mistaken) decided to opt for Baseball because he didn't want to be drafted by the team that was interested in him. Lesser talented players don't have much of a choice, and if those players start to manipulate the draft via medical issues - it could backfire on them.
Bo didn't wanna play for the Bucs because he felt that the owner at the time, Hugh Culverhouse, had sabotaged his baseball eligibility by flying him out to Tampa when he was still In college. Bo was not allowed to play baseball for his remaining time at Auburn and then decided to pursue professional baseball.
Jun 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM
- krizay
- Veteran
- Posts: 24,594
Originally posted by theduke85:
Originally posted by WINiner:This is an interesting question. It's easy to say "LOL, the 49ers medical staff is a joke!", but I find it hard to believe they are incompetent and a liability to the degree that some insist.
Then you have Foster for example who according to some teams they took him off their board because of his shoulder. Think about that for a moment. Took one of the best LB prospects this decade off their board, because of what they think is going on in his shoulder, yet here some weeks later I am seeing him catching passes in coverage like drills and he looks natural and pain free. No movement restrictions etc. How, with science being what it is today, can medical opinions vary so completely without the player influencing those opinions? It just makes ZERO sense to me that several of the very best medical professionals in their field would have such differing views if based on the same MRI's cat scans etc. alone. Is medicine that much of a crap shoot in 2017, or did Foster influence those opinions little?
I think about it like this: suppose a 4th round prospect has, say, a 20% chance of being "successful" in the NFL. You're Trent Baalke. You draft a would-be 2nd round pick in the 4th round after he dropped because of an ACL injury. Baalke effectively says, "our doctors are confident he'll make a full recovery after a redshirt year." Fast forward three years. The player doesn't amount to anything.
A lot of people will look at that and say "wasted pick" or "another botched project by the medical staff". Is it really? Statistically, a 4th round pick only has a 20% chance of being successful. Even if he was rehabilitated perfectly, the odds of him succeeding are still low. Getting a second round talent is good (higher upside), but him taking a year off stunts development. The point is, it's too easy to scapegoat injuries/gambles as the reason for a pick failing. Picks are inherently unlikely to succeed.
Let me move on to this, RE: Foster. I think different teams are willing to take different risks. Let's say Foster's shoulder is a bit of an unknown. The 49ers staff says, "we're confident he won't need surgery, but it's a possibility." The 49ers as a non-contender are in a better position to absorb a blow like missing-a-year-from-shoulder-surgery than, say, the Patriots or Seahawks. Those team have contention windows, so they need fast return on investments. This is what I believe helped Foster free fall once he started to hit the mid-late teens. I'm not saying those teams don't plan for the future, but they are more likely to make win-now moves (Seattle trading a first for Graham, Pats trading a first for Cooks, etc).
We have a winner. I would also include that some of those teams have/had different needs as well. So if you add... need, contention, GM hot seats & the different risks teams are willing to take and sometimes you just have a perfect storm.
I'm also sure there are also a few cases where teams didn't really expect a player to be there and didn't do as much due diligence as they otherwise would have. So when push comes to shove they turn in the card they are comfortable with prior to the slide.