Who will be a better NFL guard: DeCastro or Looney"?

Originally posted by ItsKapTime:

Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:

Originally posted by KowboyKiller:
2008 NFL Draft:

1st Guard drafted: Pick 39, Chilo Rachal (2nd round)

Best Guard drafted: Pick 164, Carl Nicks (5th round)

i think there is a huge difference

rachal was considered raw and needed a lot of work

decastro is not only considered pro ready but said to be the best guard prospect of all time

Madddog , I accepted your challenge.

It seems reasonalble to expect you to respond., even though the results do not support your arguement.

It appears your contention was grossly overexagerated.

Well, one of the niners beat writers said that the niners were actually wanting the Ravens guard pick, that is why the niners moved back in the third cause they knew Looney could be had in the 4th. They move up in the 4th cause they didn't want to caught flat footed again. In fact word is that the niners were po'd when the older Harbaugh took their guy right before them.

In the end, it is how you use the player and the success of your OL coach and the success of the team and offense.

Originally posted by buck:
Madddog , I am accepted your challenge.

It seems reasonalble to expect you to respond., even though the results do not support your arguement.

It appears your contention was grossly overexagerated.

you posted the exchange between you and MD on the first post, you really shouldnt have done that. It may have skewed the results as some posters dont want to be lumped in as a moron. But either way i think MD is right, would anyone have voted looney at all predraft? maybe 3 or 4 people total but as of right now 23% think looney will be a better nfl guard. 23%!!!!! that is just craziness, Decastro is the best OG prospect since Hutchinson.

Originally posted by mjo116:

Originally posted by buck:
Madddog , I am accepted your challenge.

It seems reasonalble to expect you to respond., even though the results do not support your arguement.

It appears your contention was grossly overexagerated.

you posted the exchange between you and MD on the first post, you really shouldnt have done that. It may have skewed the results as some posters dont want to be lumped in as a moron. But either way i think MD is right, would anyone have voted looney at all predraft? maybe 3 or 4 people total but as of right now 23% think looney will be a better nfl guard. 23%!!!!! that is just craziness, Decastro is the best OG prospect since Hutchinson.

If you check, I did not include the exchange between MD and myself until after others had referred to the originial post--the thread that produced the poll.

I did not include this interchaange it at first because I did not want to, as you said, skew the poll.

Also, if you look at the origins of the poll you will see that that I challelnged MD for overstating the degree of homerism on the board.

His postulation of 40% in favor of Looney is not even close to the results of the poll.

Using the formula put forward by bemused in one his responses, MD overstated his case by 43%.

Even if 25% or 30% of the board are die-hard homers, MD's constant refrerences to fans being homers and not objective or honest can not be justified.

It is just not logical (or fair) to argue that since 30% of short people are ugly and stupid, that short people are either ugly or stupic.

What I find somewhat distressing is that MD, himself, has not acknowledged that he has overstated his case.

And make no mistake, I am not denying that some fans are biased and not objective.

I have sent him PM's asking him to respond, but as of this point the he has not responded.

Originally posted by buck:
If you check, I did not include the exchange between MD and myself until after others had referred to the originial post--the thread that produced the poll.

I did not include this interchaange it at first because I did not want to, as you said, skew the poll.

Also, if you look at the origins of the poll you will see that that I challelnged MD for overstating the degree of homerism on the board.

His postulation of 40% in favor of Looney is not even close to the results of the poll.

Using the formula put forward by bemused in one his responses, MD overstated his case by 43%.

Even if 25% or 30% of the board are die-hard homers, MD's constant refrerences to fans being homers and not objective or honest can not be justified.

It is just not logical (or fair) to argue that since 30% of short people are ugly and stupid, that short people are either ugly or stupic.

What I find somewhat distressing is that MD, himself, has not acknowledged that he has overstated his case.

And make no mistake, I am not denying that some fans are biased and not objective.

I have sent him PM's asking him to respond, but as of this poin the he has not responded.

You don't need any acknowledgement or verification to prove your point. Your poll and its results say it all.

You guys seriously need to back off on MadDog. The point he was making is valid. The fact that 23% actually voted for Looney when every scout, fair weather draft fan, or tv/online analyst would say DeCastro is better (and it's not even close) is objective proof of the bias.

What's not captured in the 23% are the % of people who feel the gap between Decastro and Looney is much smaller than it actually is. As prospects, Looney will be lucky to become a 5 year NFL starter. With Decastro on the other hand, it will be an upset if he doesn't make 2+ Pro Bowls in his career.

I understand those that say "I trust what Baalke is doing, his track record speaks for itself", but don't hype up players saying that they're better prospects than they were simply because they became 49ers. I understand supporting the player and the organization, but if you didn't have a "Darius Fleming" bandwagon you were on pre-draft, don't suddenly act like he's a better prospect than he is once the draft is over.

The change in a prospect's rankings on this message board is noticeably different pre and post being drafted by the 49ers. That is MadDog's point, and it is a valid point.

Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:
You guys seriously need to back off on MadDog. The point he was making is valid. The fact that 23% actually voted for Looney when every scout, fair weather draft fan, or tv/online analyst would say DeCastro is better (and it's not even close) is objective proof of the bias.

What's not captured in the 23% are the % of people who feel the gap between Decastro and Looney is much smaller than it actually is. As prospects, Looney will be lucky to become a 5 year NFL starter. With Decastro on the other hand, it will be an upset if he doesn't make 2+ Pro Bowls in his career.

I understand those that say "I trust what Baalke is doing, his track record speaks for itself", but don't hype up players saying that they're better prospects than they were simply because they became 49ers. I understand supporting the player and the organization, but if you didn't have a "Darius Fleming" bandwagon you were on pre-draft, don't suddenly act like he's a better prospect than he is once the draft is over.

The change in a prospect's rankings on this message board is noticeably different pre and post being drafted by the 49ers. That is MadDog's point, and it is a valid point.

I agree that there is bias. I have never disputed the bias.

The interchange between MD and myself was about the degree of bias.

I argued that he overstated the degree of bias, that he painted with too broad a brush.

I have been civil in this discussion, and I feel no need to repress my point of view--to seriously back off on Maddor.

Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:
You guys seriously need to back off on MadDog. The point he was making is valid. The fact that 23% actually voted for Looney when every scout, fair weather draft fan, or tv/online analyst would say DeCastro is better (and it's not even close) is objective proof of the bias.

What's not captured in the 23% are the % of people who feel the gap between Decastro and Looney is much smaller than it actually is. As prospects, Looney will be lucky to become a 5 year NFL starter. With Decastro on the other hand, it will be an upset if he doesn't make 2+ Pro Bowls in his career.

I understand those that say "I trust what Baalke is doing, his track record speaks for itself", but don't hype up players saying that they're better prospects than they were simply because they became 49ers. I understand supporting the player and the organization, but if you didn't have a "Darius Fleming" bandwagon you were on pre-draft, don't suddenly act like he's a better prospect than he is once the draft is over.

The change in a prospect's rankings on this message board is noticeably different pre and post being drafted by the 49ers. That is MadDog's point, and it is a valid point.

Is it so surprising that the discussion of and interest in a prospect would go up on the board of the fans of the team that drafted that prospect? That's got to be true about every single team and their respective boards. That's not really the point.

Don't confuse the "sudden" interest in a draftee after he's drafted for blind, unthinking support or admiration. The interest and discussion is just part of the process, in every NFL town, for all NFL draftees. You think that because someone on this board talks about a Niner draft pick, that it means everyone is suddenly claiming to have been a lifelong fan of that pick?

Real issue isn't about Looney and DeCastro, its whether everyone on this board--or a minimum of 40% of them--are mindless, blind homers, etc. MadDog contends that they are.

You're also incorrect about the need to "backoff" MadDog. He's posted his opinion, thus inviting other points of view. You apparently feel the need to defend him, but that doesn't mean others don't still have the right to disagree. If he doens't want to discuss the position he's taken, he can just ignore it, but that doesn't mean buck doesn't get to express his differing opinion.

Or are you suggesting that we all become mindless homers of MD's posts, that no one be allowed to question or disagree with him in any way, ever? Seriously?

Originally posted by 49oz2superbowl:

You guys seriously need to back off on MadDog. The point he was making is valid. The fact that 23% actually voted for Looney when every scout, fair weather draft fan, or tv/online analyst would say DeCastro is better (and it's not even close) is objective proof of the bias.

What's not captured in the 23% are the % of people who feel the gap between Decastro and Looney is much smaller than it actually is. As prospects, Looney will be lucky to become a 5 year NFL starter. With Decastro on the other hand, it will be an upset if he doesn't make 2+ Pro Bowls in his career.

I understand those that say "I trust what Baalke is doing, his track record speaks for itself", but don't hype up players saying that they're better prospects than they were simply because they became 49ers. I understand supporting the player and the organization, but if you didn't have a "Darius Fleming" bandwagon you were on pre-draft, don't suddenly act like he's a better prospect than he is once the draft is over.

The change in a prospect's rankings on this message board is noticeably different pre and post being drafted by the 49ers. That is MadDog's point, and it is a valid point.

That is my point, regardless if the number was 50 or 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10 percent. Looney is a prospect that very few 49ers fans knew anything about, but some will run to management's decision to draft him as genius, simply because he was drafted by our team. I sincerely doubt they would have the same sentiment if was drafted by the Rams or Bucs. Damn, we could have had Joe Looney!!!

Everyone understands how fans tend to give their team the benefit of the doubt in the draft? It is no different with Niners fans. My criticism is with a couple of board members who do not know very much about the draft, but stand in defense of the Baalke, and are offended by my analysis because it is not full of glowing praise with each and every pick. If they knew what they were talking about, and evaluated based on predraft instead of post draft grading of a player, then their analysis would carry weight. OTC and I don't always agree on players, but he doesn't grade them post draft, so they get superhuman powers for putting on the Niners jersey, while the other guys we didnt select become scrubs. That is the perspective of those who are most strident in their criticism of my analysis. They would be arguing the genius of the first two picks if the players were named Brian Quick and Chris Polk, or Mohamed Sanu and Lamar Miller instead of Jenkins and James.

Originally posted by buck:
I agree that there is bias. I have never disputed the bias.

The interchange between MD and myself was about the degree of bias.

I argued that he overstated the degree of bias, that he painted with too broad a brush.

I have been civil in this discussion, and I feel no need to repress my point of view--to seriously back off on Maddor.

I think people take these polls too seriously. People just vote for whatever they feel like. There is no WAY in Hell even 20% of people actually believe Looney will be a better guard than DeCastro, they voted for him because, "YAY! I click Looney! 49ERS! Woohoo!!!"
The ones who voted for DeCastro were like, "Yawn... I click DeCastro. Help the guy out with his poll. Yawn..."

If you put them on a game show where they would win a million dollars by picking the player who will have the better career, 100% of them would pick DeCastro over Looney because they had a very good reason to give a damn about the question.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
That is my point, regardless if the number was 50 or 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10 percent. Looney is a prospect that very few 49ers fans knew anything about, but some will run to management's decision to draft him as genius, simply because he was drafted by our team. I sincerely doubt they would have the same sentiment if was drafted by the Rams or Bucs. Damn, we could have had Joe Looney!!!

Everyone understands how fans tend to give their team the benefit of the doubt in the draft? It is no different with Niners fans. My criticism is with a couple of board members who do not know very much about the draft, but stand in defense of the Baalke, and are offended by my analysis because it is not full of glowing praise with each and every pick. If they knew what they were talking about, and evaluated based on predraft instead of post draft grading of a player, then their analysis would carry weight. OTC and I don't always agree on players, but he doesn't grade them post draft, so they get superhuman powers for putting on the Niners jersey, while the other guys we didnt select become scrubs. That is the perspective of those who are most strident in their criticism of my analysis. They would be arguing the genius of the first two picks if the players were named Brian Quick and Chris Polk, or Mohamed Sanu and Lamar Miller instead of Jenkins and James.

All this talk about how Niner fans on this board appear to overrate Niner draft picks is, in the end, a trite observation that is way overstated. To that degree, it is unsupported by the numbers in buck's survey.

You are now trying to back off your initial statement, rather than admit that buck was correct. That doesn't seem like a very fair way to argue your position.

Originally posted by MadDog49er:
That is my point, regardless if the number was 50 or 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10 percent. Looney is a prospect that very few 49ers fans knew anything about, but some will run to management's decision to draft him as genius, simply because he was drafted by our team. I sincerely doubt they would have the same sentiment if was drafted by the Rams or Bucs. Damn, we could have had Joe Looney!!!

Everyone understands how fans tend to give their team the benefit of the doubt in the draft? It is no different with Niners fans. My criticism is with a couple of board members who do not know very much about the draft, but stand in defense of the Baalke, and are offended by my analysis because it is not full of glowing praise with each and every pick. If they knew what they were talking about, and evaluated based on predraft instead of post draft grading of a player, then their analysis would carry weight. OTC and I don't always agree on players, but he doesn't grade them post draft, so they get superhuman powers for putting on the Niners jersey, while the other guys we didnt select become scrubs. That is the perspective of those who are most strident in their criticism of my analysis. They would be arguing the genius of the first two picks if the players were named Brian Quick and Chris Polk, or Mohamed Sanu and Lamar Miller instead of Jenkins and James.

Today, you state, "That is my point, regardless if the number was 50 or 40 or 30 or 20 or even 10 percent."

You issued a challenge that gave specific percentages: 60% to 40%.
I took your challenge at face value, and felt that actual numbers would not jibe with your prediction.
Apparently, my skepticism was warranted.

Now, you argue that the numbers are not important. When exactly did the specific percentages lose their value?

In post # 15 of this thread, the numbers had importance, or so it seemed.
You contended, "So far, I am pretty much dead on in my prediction that DeCastro would win this thread in a 60-40 ratio. At 66-34, right in the park."

In the thread on your draft analysis, you argued thus:

"As stated in this thread, I believe, I challenged one poster who did not believe in this bias to post a DeCastro or Looney thread. I said the results wold come out about 60-40 for DeCastro, even though if DeCastro was the Niners selection, the number would be 99-1 percent. I was not far off. Right now the number is 66-34 percent for DeCastro."

First, in this post the numbers again seemed to be important to you.

Second, I was the poster who you challenged. You described me as one poster who did not believe in this bias. At no point did I ever claim that this bias did not exist. In fact, I understood that such a bias exists; I contended that you overstated the depth of that bias—that you painted with too broad a brush.

I do have one question. Do you consider me to be one of the "a couple of board members who do not know very much about the draft, but stand in defense of the Baalke, and are offended by my analysis because it is not full of glowing praise with each and every pick ?"

I am just wondering about how that statement fits into this thread.

I would like to think that I am not, but who knows.

cheers.

Originally posted by BrianGO:

Originally posted by buck:
I agree that there is bias. I have never disputed the bias.

The interchange between MD and myself was about the degree of bias.

I argued that he overstated the degree of bias, that he painted with too broad a brush.

I have been civil in this discussion, and I feel no need to repress my point of view--to seriously back off on Maddor.

I think people take these polls too seriously. People just vote for whatever they feel like. There is no WAY in Hell even 20% of people actually believe Looney will be a better guard than DeCastro, they voted for him because, "YAY! I click Looney! 49ERS! Woohoo!!!"
The ones who voted for DeCastro were like, "Yawn... I click DeCastro. Help the guy out with his poll. Yawn..."

If you put them on a game show where they would win a million dollars by picking the player who will have the better career, 100% of them would pick DeCastro over Looney because they had a very good reason to give a damn about the question.

Apparently, some take these polls seriously. I got hammered for posting this poll.

It is going to be a very long time before I post another poll.