For those of you who Think we are taking Berry at #5

**YZILLA** · 03-22-2010, 01:51 PM

Here is an interesting article on taking Berry at #5 :

Peter King Discusses Scott Pioli, Eric Berry and the Dangers of a Top 10 Safety Choice - Arrowhead Pride

**slimdagreat** · 03-22-2010, 02:10 PM

I don't think they will take Berry, I still say they end up with Okung or Bulaga, but I think they SHOULD take him.

As far as that "article" all he does is skew some injury stats to prove his point, and he fails to mention that Bob Sanders accounted for more than 1/2 of those missed games he referred to.

He then uses failed top 10 picks like Huff and Whitner to prove his point, but he fails to mention that neither of those guys were considered top 10 prospects before draft. Huff was at best top 15, and Whitner was projected as a late 1st early 2nd rounder. Sean Taylor was all world, but we all know what happened to him.

King needs to focus more on following Favre around, and stop with cherry picking to prove a point.

**Big Daddy Tek** · 03-23-2010, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by slimdagreat

I don't think they will take Berry, I still say they end up with Okung or Bulaga, but I think they SHOULD take him.

As far as that "article" all he does is skew some injury stats to prove his point, and he fails to mention that Bob Sanders accounted for more than 1/2 of those missed games he referred to.

He then uses failed top 10 picks like Huff and Whitner to prove his point, but he fails to mention that neither of those guys were considered top 10 prospects before draft. Huff was at best top 15, and Whitner was projected as a late 1st early 2nd rounder. Sean Taylor was all world, but we all know what happened to him.

King needs to focus more on following Favre around, and stop with cherry picking to prove a point.

That's what I'm talking about. Good stuff

**AussieChiefsFan** · 03-23-2010, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by slimdagreat

I don't think they will take Berry, I still say they end up with Okung or Bulaga, but I think they SHOULD take him.

As far as that "article" all he does is skew some injury stats to prove his point, and he fails to mention that Bob Sanders accounted for more than 1/2 of those missed games he referred to.

He then uses failed top 10 picks like Huff and Whitner to prove his point, but he fails to mention that neither of those guys were considered top 10 prospects before draft. Huff was at best top 15, and Whitner was projected as a late 1st early 2nd rounder. Sean Taylor was all world, but we all know what happened to him.

King needs to focus more on following Favre around, and stop with cherry picking to prove a point.

I'd LOVE it if they got him but I'm kinda nervous that they won't. I mean they NEED a safety desperately and he's the perfect answer!!!

**chief31** · 03-23-2010, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by slimdagreat

I don't think they will take Berry, I still say they end up with Okung or Bulaga, but I think they SHOULD take him.

As far as that "article" all he does is skew some injury stats to prove his point, and he fails to mention that Bob Sanders accounted for more than 1/2 of those missed games he referred to.

He then uses failed top 10 picks like Huff and Whitner to prove his point, but he fails to mention that neither of those guys were considered top 10 prospects before draft. Huff was at best top 15, and Whitner was projected as a late 1st early 2nd rounder. Sean Taylor was all world, but we all know what happened to him.

King needs to focus more on following Favre around, and stop with cherry picking to prove a point.

I don't see the Skewing of the numbers.

I checked into it, and they are accurate.

But, even if you form the same numbers and remove the best "cherry" (Bob Sanders) from the equation, the numbers are still not good.

Ed Reed, (10/128, 8%) and Troy Polamalu (19/112, 17%) account for a higher percentage of games missed due to injury (29/240, 12%) than the top three QBs, Tom Brady (15/135, 11%), Peyton Manning (0/192, 0%) and Drew Brees (0/128, 0%) who's total would be (15/455, 3%).

But, with Bob Sanders(49/96, 51%) which is how it should be, the total is even worse (78/336, 24%) for the top Safeties in The NFL.

I think the fact that you can remove the most severe case from the study and still come up with 12% of games missed due to injury says alot for the point being made in the article.

Originally Posted by slimdagreat

I've already debunked this article.

I think your "debunking" needs some practice.

(Just teasin')

**slimdagreat** · 03-23-2010, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by chief31

I don't see the Skewing of the numbers.

I checked into it, and they are accurate.

But, even if you form the same numbers and remove the best "cherry" (Bob Sanders) from the equation, the numbers are still not good.

Ed Reed, (10/128, 8%) and Troy Polamalu (19/112, 17%) account for a higher percentage of games missed due to injury (29/240, 12%) than the top three QBs, Tom Brady (15/135, 11%), Peyton Manning (0/192, 0%) and Drew Brees (0/128, 0%) who's total would be (15/455, 3%).

But, with Bob Sanders(49/96, 51%) which is how it should be, the total is even worse (78/336, 24%) for the top Safeties in The NFL.

I think the fact that you can remove the most severe case from the study and still come up with 12% of games missed due to injury says alot for the point being made in the article.

I think your "debunking" needs some practice.

(Just teasin')

That's a flawed comparison. You can't compare the games played of safeties, to that of QBs, one of whom is 2nd all time is consecutive games played, and all have played much longer than those safeties, so its a much larger sample size.

That's like me taking the number of games played by the past 10 1st round OL and then comparing them to Favre, Manning, and Brady.

**chief31** · 03-23-2010, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by slimdagreat

That's a flawed comparison. You can't compare the games played of safeties, to that of QBs, one of whom is 2nd all time is consecutive games played, and all have played much longer than those safeties, so its a much larger sample size.

That's like me taking the number of games played by the past 10 1st round OL and then comparing them to Favre, Manning, and Brady.

So, it's unfair to list the top three performers of one position to another, to try and make a case for the liklihood of injury to one of those positions?

Really?

How about if I allow you to "cherry pick" the player that is most detrimental to your case from both sides? Surely, getting to take the two from each position that suit your argument the best out of the equation should really sell your case.

I'm curious. Let's have a look...

E. Reed + T. Polamalu (29/240, 12%)
T. Brady + D. Brees (15/263, 6%)

Hmmm. Nope. Even taking the most damning example from both sides of this equation leaves Safeties at twice the percentage of games missed due to injury.

I'll be the first to admit that this only a comparison of Safety to one other position, and only the top three (or 2/3) players at each.

But the fact that top Safeties are spending that many more games on the sideline is definitely something that any GM should be taking into consideration when looking at using a high draft pick on that position.

**northwest** · 03-22-2010, 02:32 PM

If this conversation really took place, then it looks like we're not drafting Berry.

**slimdagreat** · 03-22-2010, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by northwest

If this conversation really took place, then it looks like we're not drafting Berry.

I'm 100% Pioli isn't taking Berry. Its not the way he builds a team, he builds from the inside out, so the pick is going to be an OL, unless he shocks everybody and takes mcCoy if he falls.

**bwilliams** · 03-22-2010, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by slimdagreat

I'm 100% Pioli isn't taking Berry. Its not the way he builds a team, he builds from the inside out, so the pick is going to be an OL, unless he shocks everybody and takes mcCoy if he falls.

Why are you sure it won't be Williams? It's the pick that makes the most sense (IMHO).