The ATL Trade?

[njx9]

Originally Posted by gpngc

And look how many 4th-UDFA are out of the league... you just named all the good ones...

no, i'm pretty sure he named all the *falcons* players. you know, like he said.

Look at some Falcons players taken from the

I'm on your side, Halsey. Draftniks overrate draft picks on a draft site. It makes sense.

and homers overrate their own players/team moves. it makes sense.

i guess we could turn it around and look at the overall 'success' rate of the #6 pick, and pretend that's meaningful in context, too. julio jones *is* pretty comparable to vernon gholston, after all. i mean, 'after all' if you're going to keep following irrelevant tangents to try to substantiate a severely flawed argument.

[Halsey]

I'm not overrating anything. I'm just saying the Falcons didn't make a mistake simply because they gave up 6 picks for 1. If having lots of picks was the end all, be all, the Browns would have been a strong organization in recent years. They picked 24 total players in the 1999 and 2000 Draft. In 2006 they picked 10 players. The 2006 Draft should have been a big part of their team in 2010, yet they where were they. It's not all about having lots of players. Every team can and does fill its roster. It's also about the quality of the roster.

[gpngc]

Originally Posted by njx9

no, i'm pretty sure he named all the *falcons* players. you know, like he said.







and homers overrate their own players/team moves. it makes sense.

i guess we could turn it around and look at the overall 'success' rate of the #6 pick, and pretend that's meaningful in context, too. julio jones *is* pretty comparable to vernon gholston, after all. i mean, 'after all' if you're going to keep following irrelevant tangents to try to substantiate a severely flawed argument.

Yes. My point is for him to name all of those successful FALCONS 4th-UDFA and then ALSO NAME the unsuccessful FALCONS 4th-UDFA. I'd bet the % looks a lot worse than him just highlighting the few that are good...

Julio Jones is absolutely comparable to Vernon Gholston. Both were highly touted prospects coming out. Jones could bust just like Gholston. But I'm not talking about the value of the 6th overall pick or even Julio Jones as a prospect (fact is, we don't know how he'll perform). That's a different debate. My main point is that a fourth-round pick is simply NOT AS VALUABLE as we think as draftniks and should ABSOLUTELY not be used as proof that the Falcons gave up too much AT THIS POINT (before we know what Julio does as a pro).

The Falcons are being trashed in part because of a fourth round pick. I showed the stats of fourth-round picks having success (which is subjective - that's a flaw you can point to - but my point still stands with one disagreement going your way in every draft) to highlight that the Falcons lost an unknown player who based on my mini-study would have had a 30% chance to have a positive impact for 2 years and a 12% chance to be a very positive contributor to the franchise.

You can call my tangent irrelevant - that's fine. But the sticking point for people has been a fourth-round pick. What I'm trying to prove is that losing a fourth-round pick is not a big deal. Which I think I did pretty convincingly. You did not explain why my argument, a fourth-round pick is not as important as most think, is SEVERELY flawed. Small sample size? Not a bad point. I really don't care that much to go deeper. Subjective? Not a terrible point but you're still never going to get to even 40% (and again, Seneca Wallace's are in that category).

[njx9]

Originally Posted by Halsey

They picked 24 total players in the 1999 and 2000 Draft.

wth are you talking about? the had 8 picks in each of those drafts. which, even if you just can't count, is a whopping ONE more than a team would've gotten without a single compensatory pick.

In 2006 they picked 10 players. The 2006 Draft should have been a big part of their team in 2010, yet they where were they. It's not all about having lots of players. Every team can and does fill its roster. It's also about the quality of the roster.

yes, because there's a **** ton of relevance in the fact that their front office wasn't talented enough to pick decent players. are you suggesting that the falcons front office is similarly inept, if they can't draft in the top ten? or are you somehow suggesting that had they traded 5 of those picks to move up and take wimbley 6th, it would've been a better move, because hell, who needs those picks anyways?

but yeah, every team fills that roster. good thing denver filled it with potential depth at DT. i'm sure that won't be a problem. but clearly, in your world, it doesn't matter. they took a top rated player. super. bowl. bound.

[njx9]

Originally Posted by gpngc

Yes. My point is for him to name all of those successful FALCONS 4th-UDFA and then ALSO NAME the unsuccessful FALCONS 4th-UDFA. I'd bet the % looks a lot worse than him just highlighting the few that are good...

name all of the 6th overall picks who were good, and all the ones who weren't. because that would be *just* as relevant. the current value of ANY pick that was just used cannot be measured against past results, and it's absolutely mind-bogglingly ridiculous to measure them against the results of a previous front office's decisions. it's like suggesting every future denver draft is likely crap because dan reeves was the worst evaluator of talent in league history.

Julio Jones is absolutely comparable to Vernon Gholston. Both were highly touted prospects coming out. Jones could bust just like Gholston. But I'm not talking about the value of the 6th overall pick or even Julio Jones as a prospect (fact is, we don't know how he'll perform). That's a different debate. My main point is that a fourth-round pick is simply NOT AS VALUABLE as we think as draftniks and should ABSOLUTELY not be used as proof that the Falcons gave up too much AT THIS POINT (before we know what Julio does as a pro).

it absolutely bloody computes into the value of the trade, and more strongly if you believe that what the team could've used it on would've helped more than what they did use it on. arguing that, '50 years ago 4th round picks busted at an 100% rate' is silly and has less than no place in the discussion. it's a red herring.

The Falcons are being trashed in part because of a fourth round pick. I showed the stats of fourth-round picks having success (which is subjective - that's a flaw you can point to - but my point still stands with one disagreement going your way in every draft) to highlight that the Falcons lost an unknown player who based on my mini-study would have had a 30% chance to have a positive impact for 2 years and a 12% chance to be a very positive contributor to the franchise.

those are an utter abortion of any actual statistical analysis you could've done, and if you'd thought about what you were typing for 12 minutes instead of punching numbers into excel, you'd realize it. simply: using a previous front office's failure to properly utilize late round draft picks to suggest any correlation with the current front office's ability to do so is asinine. suggesting that players who were taken in the past have any bearing on any players who will be taken in the future is asinine. it's exactly akin to saying 'vince young was terrible, so cam newton must suck'. 'some a were x, therefore some b are x', can't remember the logical fallacy there, but you're basically suggesting causation, when there isn't even correlation.

You can call my tangent irrelevant - that's fine. But the sticking point for people has been a fourth-round pick. What I'm trying to prove is that losing a fourth-round pick is not a big deal. Which I think I did pretty convincingly. You did not explain why my argument, a fourth-round pick is not as important as most think, is SEVERELY flawed. Small sample size? Not a bad point. I really don't care that much to go deeper. Subjective? Not a terrible point but you're still never going to get to even 40% (and again, Seneca Wallace's are in that category).

i'm pretty sure the sticking point has been the ENTIRE BLOODY TRADE. if they'd traded a first and a fourth, no one would care. the fourth round pick is only relevant because halsey thinks that's the argument he can win, so he keeps pushing it. don't fall into the same trap, because i'm pretty sure he's not through making it deeper.

[WinslowBodden]

Originally Posted by bitonti

i remember not too long ago the Browns traded down in the Mark Sanchez situation and got a good not great player in Alex Mack. They may have done the same thing here. Like they couldn't use Julio Jones?

as a general note Julio was way underrated, all draft season. He ran a 4.3 on a broken foot. He made a ton of huge plays at Bama and he run blocks like a beast. For a playoff team like the falcons, extra draft picks aren't gonna make the roster, better off getting a real blue chipper.

Alex Mack is one of the top 10 centers in the league and like what 23 years old?

Pretty sure I would consider him a great player.

[Halsey]

Originally Posted by njx9

wth are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that they picked a total of 24 players in the 1999 and 2000 Drafts. What do you not understand about that?

[AntoinCD]

Originally Posted by Halsey

I'm talking about the fact that they picked a total of 24 players in the 1999 and 2000 Drafts. What do you not understand about that?

1999: Patrick Kerney, Reggie Kelly, Jeff Paulk, Johndale Carty, Eugene Barker, Eric Thigpen, Todd McClure, Rondel Menendez

2000: Travis Claridge, Mark Simoneau, Michael Thompson, Anthony Midget, Marend Philyaw, Derrick Vaughan

That's 14. Not 24.

[Halsey]

"If having lots of picks was the end all, be all, the Browns would have been a strong organization in recent years. They picked 24 total players in the 1999 and 2000 Draft'"

[AntoinCD]

Originally Posted by Halsey

"If having lots of picks was the end all, be all, the Browns would have been a strong organization in recent years. They picked 24 total players in the 1999 and 2000 Draft'"

Apologies, didnt read the whole thing

[TitanHope]

Draft picks are overrated when it comes to known players. You're trading an unknown for a known. In this case, you're not trading for a known quantity. You're making a costly trade in order to gamble on an unknown player. Although, I do find the humor in the "You guys are making too big of a deal out of draft picks. They're overrated!" when the reward for trading these picks is, wait for it, another overrated draft pick.

Why do the Browns suck? Probably because they haven't had a competant QB for the past decade, save for a fluke year by Derek Anderson. The FO has also been overhauled and they've made yet another coaching change this year. I'd say no QB and general FO incompetance would be the reason. Afterall, they've had premuim picks year after year because of their lack of success, so that "quality" hasn't helped either.

Originally Posted by Halsey

And the Titans sucked. Most of those guys are average joes.

Your argument was that we shouldn't make an issue about 4th RD picks, since they aren't impact players. I listed 6 starters from the Titans, one of which was a rookie, and some notable 4th RD and later players from the Falcons. This directly contradicts your statement.

You're slotted by default a single 4th RD pick every year. How is it not significant for a team to have 6 starters picked from that round?

And the Titans sucked as a team. The defense was ranked 15th in the NFL and the offense was 17th. They started 5-2, lost VY, and finished 1-9.

Originally Posted by Halsey

Using free agents to support your argument just shows that free agency can be used to address needs that the Draft doesn't.

Exactly. If you need immediate impact, you get it through FA. But it happened that they were 4th RD picks or later, so I thought they were relevant seeing as how you were diminishing the value of players in the 4th RD. You're absolutely right on this, and I've demonstrably agreed with you.

Originally Posted by gpngc

And look how many 4th-UDFA are out of the league... you just named all the good ones...

Halsey said, and I quote, "For everyone who thinks all those picks are so valuable, tell me the last time the Falcons or Browns got an impact player in the 4th round." I did so, and even included players from even less valuable picks.

I didn't hand pick all the good ones. Halsey made a silly question and I answered it. The argument had nothing to do with percentages, but if in your language "when was the last time" actually means "how often," then you're definitely right and not totally missing the concept. Wanna accuse someone of hand picking data? Ask Halsey why he didn't touch the 1st RD yet accused 2nd RD'ers and beyond of being risks.

And I'm not even going to get into the sheer stupidity of using a success/failure ratio when you're looking at a situation where there's a set number of roster spots available, incumbent players to compete against, other rookie players to compete against, having much higher investments in players that make them untouchable, as well as factors such as injuries, and even trying to create an objective empirical argument from a league-wide scale that has any hope for exactness when discussing a singular team. As if Al Davis's incompetance 3 years ago has any ******* bearing whatsoever on Thomas Dimitroff's in 2011, let alone the hypocrisy of assuming he knows what the hell he's doing in the 1st RD/trade but is thrown in with all the other dumbass GM's over the past 5 years when the 4th RD comes up. Not to mention, not providing any hope of context considering you don't bring up any of the odds of the 3 RD's before and the 3 RD's afterward this stated round that is in the center of the entire process. And then you ask me (in an unquoted post) to NAME the successful and unsuccessful players, when in the quote following this, you give us NO NAMES (correction: 4 names and randomly Seneca Wallace) and just numbers, forcing us to assume you're not biased in your reasoning for your subjective definition of success, all when you were the one to bring up percentages to begin with because your reading comprehension failed you. Do you think I'm ********, or do you just like making Njx and I wake up the other occupants in our homes with our booming laughter?

Originally Posted by gpngc

Fourth round success rate from 2003-2006

2003: TEN players positively contributed for over 2 years for the team that drafted them. You could argue they were worth the pick. FOUR of those ten players outplayed their draft position and were important starters for that team and were absolutely worth the pick.

2004: SEVEN players positively contributed for over 2 years for the team that drafted them. You could argue they were worth the pick. FOUR of those seven players outplayed their draft position and were important starters for that team and were absolutely worth the pick.

2005: ELEVEN players positively contributed for over 2 years for the team that drafted them. You could argue they were worth the pick. About FIVE of those eleven players outplayed their draft position and were important starters for that team and were absolutely worth the pick (tough: Kerry Rhodes, Orton, MB3, Sproles).

2006: THIRTEEN players positively contributed for over 2 years for the team that drafted them. You could argue they were worth the pick. FOUR of those thirteen players outplayed their draft position and were important starters for that team and were absolutely worth the pick.

Average of 35 picks in the fourth round each year.

35 x 4 = 140

41 out of 140 players (29.3 %) of 4th round picks from 2003-2006 positively contributed for over 2 years for the team that drafted them.

About 17 of 140 players (12%) of 4th round picks from 2003-2006 outplayed their draft position and were important starters for that team and were absolutely worth the pick.

*My stats may be a little off as I did this fairly quickly. Go ahead and add % points if you wish, my point still stands because you'll never get near 50%. The risk/reward dynamic in the fourth round, as I've shown with the stats, makes these picks less valuable than we think (and WANT). Possible a fourth-rounder works out? Yes. Probable. No.

It is logical to assume that trading away a fourth-round pick is trading away a 12% chance of getting a good player and about a 30% chance of getting a contributor.

First off, kudos for doing the legwork. Probably took you some time.

Redundant after reading post 2613584:

But did you do the 1st RD as well? Or the 2nd, or 3rd, or 5th? I'm curious to see how much of a difference there is between them, but logically, the earlier the pick, the better the chance to fall under these guidelines. There's more talent and a higher investment in the player. How did injuries factor in? This seems pretty expansive and without context.

The draft is an inherent risk at every level. Just because there's a risk to fail doesn't mean there's disregardable value, which is Halsey's assertion that I'm arguing against. It's the 4th player that a team can choose, according to the default slotting. The NFL gives you 7 picks a year by default. Why are the last 4 selections irrelevant?

Originally Posted by gpngc

A chance at Julio Jones-caliber player should not be missed because of well less than a 50/50 shot at finding Seneca Wallace in the fourth round (yes I counted him as a positive contributor).

Not my argument, and it was much more than a chance at Seneca Wallace that was given up in return for Jones. I'm not sure who, but it's not me who's saying, "I'd be all for it if they hadn't thrown those two 4th RD'ers in!" I'm the one saying, "No, those 4th RD'ers should be factored into the analysis of the trade, and not disregarded because they're the smallest piece of this whole."

Originally Posted by gpngc

I'm on your side, Halsey. Draftniks overrate draft picks on a draft site. It makes sense.

There's actually value in quantity. Listen to coaches in postdraft pressers. I've heard, "...and we got an additional player," multiple times used to support a trade. It's definitely a factor.



The issue isn't that 4th RD picks are just as important as 1st RD'ers, or even vital. It's that there is absolutely a significant difference in value between [1st RD, 2nd RD, 4th RD, future 1st RD, future 4th RD] and [1st RD, 2nd RD, and future 1st RD]. These aren't flyers you take in the 7th RD. It's the smack-dab middle of the draft. I don't understand how they can be disregarded in the assessment of this trade just because you're not guaranteed a starter from day one. It's pure ignorance, to me.

This argument is entirely circular to begin with. Say draft picks are overrated to defend trading for a draft pick. Rationalize drafting a player makes sense because he's a specialized need in occasional situations and not needed every down, and then talk about other picks not being worth their pick because they didn't contribute enough or weren't impactful. Saying later round picks aren't impact players then defending not taking a DE early because hey, we got ******* Cliff Matthews in the 7th RD. It's been entertaining to watch people willingly bang their heads against a wall repeatedly. I just had to join in for some reason.

I don't really have much of an issue with the trade to begin with, which is funny.

[Halsey]

meh, this argument is going a whole lot of nowhere. Nobody is going to know anything for sure for a long time and nobody is going to change their current opinion. I just can't wait to see Jones pwn ur noobish opinions. :D

[LonghornsLegend]

I don't even know why the 4th round pick(s) is the talk of this thread anyway. More importantly it was the future 1st rder they miss out on, as well as the 2nd rder this year. That's 3 pro bowl players your team could very easily draft with decent scouting, as well as them being early picks.


That's where the real debate should be. I don't think there's any doubt to anyone Dimitroff overpaid, but it's silly to assume 4th round picks are worthless. There are always good players in that round every year.

[Caddy]

Aqib Talib is going to shoot Jones so yeah, the Falcons got ripped off.

[AntoinCD]

Originally Posted by Caddy

Aqib Talib is going to shoot Jones so yeah, the Falcons got ripped off.

But in fairness if the Falcons had've stayed put then Talib would have shot who they took with the 27th pick, their second round pick, their fourth round pick and next years picks too. In fact Aqib Talib's just gonna shoot everyone, and really...who can blame him?

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by AntoinCD

But in fairness if the Falcons had've stayed put then Talib would have shot who they took with the 27th pick, their second round pick, their fourth round pick and next years picks too. In fact Aqib Talib's just gonna shoot everyone, and really...who can blame him?

Terrelle Pryor totally agrees.

[OGDraft]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

I don't think there's any doubt to anyone Dimitroff overpaid

You would think so...

[prock]

Originally Posted by gpngc

I'm on your side, Halsey. Draftniks overrate draft picks on a draft site. It makes sense.

This is never a good thing, you sure you don't wanna reconsider this?


The 4th round picks aren't irrelevant, but they aren't what the big deal is about. They gave up two firsts and a second for a receiver who, while I loved a prospect, has decent bust potential, and more important has yet to play in the NFL. Three players with high starter potential (1st, 1st, 2nd) + two players who should easily be solid depth players (2 4ths) >>>>>>>>> One second receiver. I think it's pretty simple math. I love Julio, don't get me wrong, but that was obscene how much they gave up for him. A lot of people still wouldn't like this trade if they gave all that up for Larry Fitzgerald. They gave up more than the Bears did for Jay Cutler (in case you didn't catch that, franchise QB >>>>>>> second receiver). Any questions??

[SativaDominant]

Originally Posted by prock

This is never a good thing, you sure you don't wanna reconsider this?


The 4th round picks aren't irrelevant, but they aren't what the big deal is about. They gave up two firsts and a second for a receiver who, while I loved a prospect, has decent bust potential, and more important has yet to play in the NFL. Three players with high starter potential (1st, 1st, 2nd) + two players who should easily be solid depth players (2 4ths) >>>>>>>>> One second receiver. I think it's pretty simple math. I love Julio, don't get me wrong, but that was obscene how much they gave up for him. A lot of people still wouldn't like this trade if they gave all that up for Larry Fitzgerald. They gave up more than the Bears did for Jay Cutler (in case you didn't catch that, franchise QB >>>>>>> second receiver). Any questions??

Bingo. They essentially bet the farm on a solid wide receiver prospect from a very poor draft class. Not to mention that receiver was arguably the deepest position in this class outside of defensive line (and, really, the defensive line talent in this class was slightly overstated).

With that said, I'd expect the Falcons' offensive philosophy to change dramatically over the course of the next few seasons. Michael Turner has carried an extremely heavy workload in his two Atlanta seasons and was a non-factor in both of their playoff appearances. Secondly, they play on turf in a dome. Their offensive philosophy has been great for developing a young QB on the fly, but it gives them no advantage in their home stadium. That was fairly obvious in the Packer playoff game - where a team from freezing Green Bay was better suited to playing on the Falcons' field. And thirdly, it's now or never for Matty Ice. He's entering his fourth year, and it's time for the offense to revolve around him. If it doesn't happen now, it's never going to.

[onejayhawk]

Very poor is an overstatement. Somewhat thin I would accept.

J

[ArkyRamsFan]

Originally Posted by Halsey

Any position can be filled at any point in the Draft. This is garbage logic. There's no rule against drafting any position in any round.

Hmmm...so you would take, say, a long-snapper with the 6th pick in the first round. You, sir, are the one with the "garbage logic."

If you've been paying attention you would know that certain positions are valued higher (much, much higher in some cases) than others. To paraphrase George Orwell "All positions are equal; some are more equal than others." For Atlanta to pay that kind of price for what is, essentially, a second wideout is obscene.

Also, I am interested to hear what you have to say that if the Falcons would have just stood pat they could have drafted Kyle Rudolph in the first and then Greg Little in the second and still have saved all of their picks for next year.

Doesn't that sound like a much more effective draft haul?

[gpngc]

Originally Posted by prock

This is never a good thing, you sure you don't wanna reconsider this?


The 4th round picks aren't irrelevant, but they aren't what the big deal is about. They gave up two firsts and a second for a receiver who, while I loved a prospect, has decent bust potential, and more important has yet to play in the NFL. Three players with high starter potential (1st, 1st, 2nd) + two players who should easily be solid depth players (2 4ths) >>>>>>>>> One second receiver. I think it's pretty simple math. I love Julio, don't get me wrong, but that was obscene how much they gave up for him. A lot of people still wouldn't like this trade if they gave all that up for Larry Fitzgerald. They gave up more than the Bears did for Jay Cutler (in case you didn't catch that, franchise QB >>>>>>> second receiver). Any questions??

Shoot me in the face^ Well over half of fourth-round picks EASILY phase out of the league quickly. But we aren't using past statistics because it's better to go off a hope and a whim of the less-than-10% chance that the Falcons would have gotten solid players with BOTH 4th-rounders. But we'll dismiss the statistics because they provide a relevant counter-argument about the value of fourth-round picks.

They essentially bet the farm What farm? They bet a few picks - their farm is already thriving.

[i]And I'm not even going to get into the sheer stupidity of using a success/failure ratio when you're looking at a situation[/I

It is SHEER stupidity to look at past drafts to find the percentage of success for guys taken in certain rounds when measuring the value of unknown future picks in that same round? How else would you even come close to determining the value of next year's second round pick? This is a gigantic business and if you think there is no statistical analysis based on past drafts in determining the value of future picks and that it's just a crapshoot then I think you're underestimating the complexity of the process.

And saying "for a #2 receiver...." First of all, that was their biggest weakness. Second of all, a #2 receiver plays way more snaps than whatever DE they would have drafted at 27. Jones will be on the field in every single set besides GL and if for some reason before the 10-yard line the coaching staff subs in Justin Peelle for a 2TE FB 1WR look... I don't think they'll do that very often...

[prock]

OK, so their draft picks don't matter because you don't trust the Falcons to make good choices? If half of fourth round picks flame out, we will cut down the two good depth players into one. Happy?

And yes it is stupid. Player A drafted in the 4th round two years ago is completely independent from Player B drafted in this year's fourth round. Why would you look at past players taken at a certain position at a certain point to determine whether or not you want to take a player?

Obviously #2 receiver was a need. But was it worth all they gave up? They could have taken a DE at 27, taken someone like Greg Little in rd 2, and gotten another should be starter next year. Is that better than Julio? Yes it is. If you want to argue that one receiver is better than 5 players, have fun.

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by SativaDominant

Bingo. They essentially bet the farm on a solid wide receiver prospect from a very poor draft class. Not to mention that receiver was arguably the deepest position in this class outside of defensive line (and, really, the defensive line talent in this class was slightly overstated).

For one Julio isn't a "solid WR prospect", I don't know why we have to try and downgrade how good he is by calling him a #2 WR, and solid WR prospect because they paid alot. That doesn't make him any less of a prospect.


Also, you do realize that you calling this a "very poor draft class" just makes them giving up multiple picks for 1 of the potentially elite players seem like a better decision? I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it's a poor draft class as you say, the logical thing to do would be to package picks in said class, to move up for a sure thing.



Besides, a draft class being very poor doesn't make any 1 player worse, I don't even know why that had to be mentioned. It has no bearing on how good Julio, or anyone else will be.

[SativaDominant]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

For one Julio isn't a "solid WR prospect", I don't know why we have to try and downgrade how good he is by calling him a #2 WR, and solid WR prospect because they paid alot. That doesn't make him any less of a prospect.


Also, you do realize that you calling this a "very poor draft class" just makes them giving up multiple picks for 1 of the potentially elite players seem like a better decision? I'm not saying that's what happened, but if it's a poor draft class as you say, the logical thing to do would be to package picks in said class, to move up for a sure thing.



Besides, a draft class being very poor doesn't make any 1 player worse, I don't even know why that had to be mentioned. It has no bearing on how good Julio, or anyone else will be.

Moving up in a weak class absolutely makes sense if you're drafting a sure fire prospect at a position of high value. And, again, while this was a weak draft class, wide receiver was arguably the deepest position in the entire draft.

As far as Julio's status as a prospect, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've had this argument with people before, and nobody changes their mind. He's big, strong, fast, blocks, yada, yada, yada. I know. However, he plays slow, doesn't seperate from DBs (despite having good route running form and hip flexibility), and struggles tracking the ball in the air. People have vastly overstated his potential because of his height/weight/timed speed ratio. He's a #2 receiver in a #1's body who will make a living running slants and drags and breaking tackles underneath.