Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
OU
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="joegrizzy" data-source="post: 3869806" data-attributes="member: 45524"><p>true,</p><p></p><p>ah yes, players drafted overall, not which ones went in which rounds, drafted at what position, and how much money.</p><p></p><p>Average the salaries, the data might look the same, might not.</p><p>also, if you add up the OTHER conferences, there are still more players taken from *not* the SEC, so actually my argument stands. yes, you could say ONE conference having more than several combined is the point, but again i would ask about where those players are taken, then you could even go further into the data and look at second contract values, players that play more than 5 years etc etc.</p><p></p><p>just saying more kids get drafted from the SEC when some of the biggest players in the game were drafted notoriously late from schools no one has heard of ISN'T relevant.</p><p></p><p>you really aren't that great at making analogies and comparisons. like a far better comparison would be the things i mentioned above, but i was comparing a player who plays every play and puts up big numbers in a worse conference to someone who plays second string in the SEC.</p><p></p><p>you brought up a complete fallacy and made it about "overall players drafted" which wasn't nearly as nuanced as my original statement, which now i'm taking even further.</p><p></p><p>what are those odds that a player who plays every down at a smaller conference vs a player who plays second string in the SEC? didn't ou get a quarterback who was going to be a backup and he didn't want to be? didn't he get drafted? you're saying players don't care about....playing?</p><p></p><p>it's inaccurate to measure draftees of all positions and all players when the original comparison was between a player who is at the level of "number one" for a smaller school or "number two" for an SEC one. *obviously* the conference has more players drafted from the first string; but that's missing the point i was making. which.....doesn't surprise me.</p><p></p><p>i understand football is a team game of many positions. some positions are more team oriented and some positions are more individual. you certainly might get plenty of playing time as a backup safety in the SEC. but would you as a backup QB? there are without a doubt players in the "skilled" positions that would much rather play every down and give themselves a chance to prove themselves on the field than just ride the bench for a "blue blood".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="joegrizzy, post: 3869806, member: 45524"] true, ah yes, players drafted overall, not which ones went in which rounds, drafted at what position, and how much money. Average the salaries, the data might look the same, might not. also, if you add up the OTHER conferences, there are still more players taken from *not* the SEC, so actually my argument stands. yes, you could say ONE conference having more than several combined is the point, but again i would ask about where those players are taken, then you could even go further into the data and look at second contract values, players that play more than 5 years etc etc. just saying more kids get drafted from the SEC when some of the biggest players in the game were drafted notoriously late from schools no one has heard of ISN'T relevant. you really aren't that great at making analogies and comparisons. like a far better comparison would be the things i mentioned above, but i was comparing a player who plays every play and puts up big numbers in a worse conference to someone who plays second string in the SEC. you brought up a complete fallacy and made it about "overall players drafted" which wasn't nearly as nuanced as my original statement, which now i'm taking even further. what are those odds that a player who plays every down at a smaller conference vs a player who plays second string in the SEC? didn't ou get a quarterback who was going to be a backup and he didn't want to be? didn't he get drafted? you're saying players don't care about....playing? it's inaccurate to measure draftees of all positions and all players when the original comparison was between a player who is at the level of "number one" for a smaller school or "number two" for an SEC one. *obviously* the conference has more players drafted from the first string; but that's missing the point i was making. which.....doesn't surprise me. i understand football is a team game of many positions. some positions are more team oriented and some positions are more individual. you certainly might get plenty of playing time as a backup safety in the SEC. but would you as a backup QB? there are without a doubt players in the "skilled" positions that would much rather play every down and give themselves a chance to prove themselves on the field than just ride the bench for a "blue blood". [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
OU
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom