Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon

Honestly they both have a point, and it sucks that this conversation between two incredibly influential researchers won't lead to positive change.

Claims should always be substantiated by the most relevant metrics to that claim, but failing to use standard metrics means your readership can't put the work in the context of other research. Weird that this has to be a win/lose argument

Thanks for letting us know man, but I'm too lazy to upvote you

Comment deleted12 days ago

I think the key is mathematical understanding of how each piece of the architecture transforms its input. Once you get the linear algebra of it you can start to draw conclusions about why each piece was added.

Take the max pool people were asking about above for example: its basically feature selection + activation function + dimensionality reduction in one handy operation, it would be my guess there was some thought the LSTM would benefit from only receiving a learned selection of the N units and pickups input.

See people do stuff like this enough and you start trying what you've seen work, or transfer that information into a new setting

1 point · 10 days ago

Do you know what "Embedding" means in this context? In trying to decipher their architecture I'm assuming FC is short for fully connected network. I'm not sure about embedding though.

Also, is the purpose of the pre-LSTM networks primarily feature selection?

Relatively inexperienced in ML

see more

I'm assuming FC is short for fully connected network

You assume correctly

Do you know what "Embedding" means in this context

You'll notice that embeddings come after data inputs that are in word form like "unit type" as opposed to numeric form, like "health over last 12 frames." When your input is a word, you have to have a way of transforming those words into matrices filled with numbers that represent the words, whereas with numbers you can sort of just use them directly. Word embeddings, as opposed to a simple one-hot encoding, largely try to maintain the structure of words so that similar words have similar matrix representations. Word2vec is the classic and most widely used example, they could have also used bag-of-words or something else. Who knows.

is the purpose of the pre-LSTM networks primarily feature selection?

Yeah probably. It would be a lot to ask of the LSTM to do all that feature selection by itself. I assume they found that the model trains better when they segment everything like that. Would be super tough to do without the compute resources OpenAI has though.

Relatively inexperienced in ML

I've only been doing this for a little while myself, I'm a grad student. Thats whats so exciting about ML, if you immerse yourself in it and don't cut corners with the theory you can get whats going on - its such a young field

Tbf I think its tough to expect people with ML PhDs to produce code of the same cleanliness/readability that software engineers produce. They just train different skills

You know what the US could really use? An actual conservative political party. Sensible conservative party, seems like it would be impossible.

see more

I think at some point the USA will begin to resemble European democracies, with left, center, and right parties.

I'm a registered Democrat, and I'd probably be your closest analogue on the left side of the aisle (assuming you're one of those sensible conservatives). I'm economically pretty progressive, but socially quite moderate. I was with Obama on most everything but now I feel like the party is sprinting to the left of me, prioritizing shit like misgendering trans people and marches about various forms of inequality (with no proposed policy) seemingly over poverty, homelessness, trade policy, education. It grinds my fucking gears.

I wish there was a centrist party where people left behind in the sprint to the extremes could hash out policy without having to yell at each other across a massive dogmatic divide

2 points · 21 days ago

CS degree with math minor, because there are far more data engineering positions than data scientist (what is that, anyway - basically a fancy name for a statistician with some computer programming ability).

P.S. If you're dead set on the data analysis and modeling part of data science, get a graduate degree. M.S. is sort of a minimum hurdle here unless you luck out with the correct internships.

see more

+1, if by "Data Scientist" you want to be doing stuff more complicated than web scraping, AB email testing, dashboard making for analytics reporting etc you need a MS or ideally a PhD. If thats not feasible, look for "Data Analyst" positions and work your way up.

Reasons why: DS talent is hard to identify and train, people hiring you rarely understand what exactly it is you do so they put a premium on experience, and there are thousands of people with 0-1 years of experience and either a BS or a certification from a bootcamp who want to be doing exactly what you're doing.

Machine learning weights are not algorithms. We have words for a reason. For someone so concerned about precision in language, this author isn't very concerned about precision in language.

see more
1 point · 22 days ago · edited 22 days ago

I think you forgot that weights don't train themselves.

What are we supposed to call the combination of loss functions / optimizers / methods to set weights such as SGD etc that determine decision boundaries? Are those not algorithms that discriminate?

You're being a part of the problem, its a complex subject and well-intentioned reporters are scared of having their heads bitten off by sanctimonious techies

Do you know how a coup takes place?

From what I've read, they are generally, but not always disguised as training missions and war games. Most of the front line troops don't even know they are apart of an active coup until things snowball past the point of return. By that time it's too late.

see more

You clearly have absolutely no idea how the american military operates, and its comical that you think you know what you're talking about. A common theme of coups is a small cabal of powerful military leaders with outsized influence both within the military and in government. The US military is not only aggressively apolitical, but a massive, multi-armed bureaucracy. Generals get fired just for for having public political opinions and no group of four stars has half the authority necessary to plan and execute a military exercise capable of overthrowing the us government without civilian oversight.

Please stop fear mongering. You're embarrassing yourself.

5 points · 1 month ago

Ducksch wants to leave for Düsseldorf, but negotiations between them and Pauli are stagnating atm.

see more

I actually hope we take back Ducksch, he did super well last year and god knows he would cost less than the bats man

Ducksch is 24 and just had his first good year in the 2nd league.

With all due respect, he's not good enough to be a striker for us. If he keeps improving and proves last year wasn't a fluke he might be a good back up eventually, but having him lead our attack really shouldn't be our ambition.

see more

I get the argument, but I have two issues. First, I just think the 2.Bundesliga level of competition is a little underrated. I would MUCH rather have a guy who scored 18 with 7 assists in 33 games in 2.Bundesliga than a guy who scored 9 with 0 assists in 25 games in the scottish prem. Yet somehow, everyone seems okay with us signing Moussa Dembele. Huh? Second, 24 is pretty young for a striker, they peak a little later than wingers do.

Load more comments

Ours: Arik Armstead

NFL: Jimmy Garoppolo

see more

Nah man, the NFL one is easily Buckner, dude was top 10 D-Line last year and nobody really talks about him

Thank you for the detailed comment!

Unrelated, by I'm a rising sophmore in CS and I'm looking to get into AI and Machine Learning. Any tips? u/captainsadness?

see more

1: take as many math classes in relevant areas as your school offers: all the calculus, linear algebra, and every probability class is the ideal set

2: get great grades: the industry is pretty uptight about degrees, its quite hard to get in without a masters or phd, so you should make sure that option is available to you when you graduate

3: try to get involved with a research lab at your school, its fantastic exposure and ideal for grad school applications, jobs too

Good luck!

Isn’t this something you could do with clever application of NLTK and Keras?

see more

I mean, maybe. Not familiar with nltk but i assume its an NLP package (no time to look it up atm sorry). You can probably do it with a number of tools, its just really complicated and I doubt the results would be good. You'd still need to know where to look.

The best way I can think of to do it would be sort of like a GAN where you show it two sets of 10 (random number) tweets with 50% chance theyre from the same account and 50% they're from different accounts and the task is to guess if its the same or different accounts.

Its feasible, just I haven't the faintest clue if it would work and even if it did its less of a scalpel and more of a sawed off shotgun in terms of how accurate it would be

Load more comments

Not me guys hahaha lol I love beer and tits miss me with that gay shit daddy

15 points · 2 months ago

I’m mind blown by the ignoring of edge this year..

see more

I really hate this narrative. Its honestly so misled its absurd. A rage over not drafting an edge player presupposes:

1) Edge is somehow the only must-draft position we had. Take a look at our stats from last year and you'll notice that our worst position group by FAR was corner. I would like to remind you that our best corner going into last season we traded to the jets for a 5th round pick. Corner is arguably as valuable as edge, just look how much the top guys get paid, I get it isn't as flashy. How did we address that need at a premium spot? Best corner in free agency, two in the draft.

2) Edge was a position it was even possible upgrade in this offseason. No good FA edge guys, but we did get attaochu who showed flashed and might be an OK stopgap. Historically bad draft class. The only good guy was Chubb, who I and a lot of good analysts didn't like, who wasn't even there when we picked. Landry clearly had issues because he fell so far. I'm sure some guy in the later rounds does ok, but a lot of that is luck.

3) A late round edge pick would even have been better than the guys we have on the roster/are developing. Do you really, honestly think that a 5th/4th round guy in a bad edge class is going to get more sacks than a year 2 pita taomoepenu, Cassius marsh, Attaochu, or even Solomon Thomas? I have bad news for you, football doesn't work like that. Unless you're a draft wizard/lucky as all fuck, plus edge players are picked in the first and second round. Full stop. Everyone and their mother wants edge guys.

4) The front office doesn't know everything you know and have the same concerns you have. I'd like to remind you that Adam Peters and John Lynch have spent significant time in and around the Broncos front office, an office famous for drafting successful edge guys early and often, even when they don't have a franchise quarterback. Chubb over Rosen?? History could easily make a meme out of that pick. They know the value of edge and how to scout it, they just determined this off season wasn't the best time to address it because our whole roster is still crap and we have needs in every single position.

Its time for all of us to stop acting like not drafting an edge guy in this draft was an inexcusable act of gross negligence. Everyone knows its a hole in our roster. Its one of many holes, we started last year 0-9 for gods sake, that doesn't just happen by accident. This year wasn't the time to address the need. You can't fix every single damn thing in a year

-12 points · 2 months ago

Sorry we can’t all live in fantasy land where all our position groups are great

We could have gone for JPP or Curry. Could’ve gotten Landry or Davenport. Could’ve gotten any edge player with intact ACLs.

see more


$12.5 million and a 3rd round pick for an aging plus run defender who got 7 and 8.5 sacks the last two years? Its basically a one year contract with a two year team option. Man, I really don't know about that one. We got 6.5 sacks out of Dumervile last year and we paid $4.5 mil for that season, The extra .5-2 sacks just ain't worth the 3rd round pick and $8m, we've got cap room but not infinite cap room. Sure, theres a chance he plays like the guy he was a few years ago, but its a gamble. We need a bend/speed guy not a run down power/inside move guy.


Hes a tweener, kinda like Solomon Thomas. Really better as an inside rusher or on stunts than on the outside imo. Also like Solomon Thomas, he got 3 sacks last year. Nice pressures though. He's just not what we need, we need a passing situational outside rusher who is significantly better than what we have and he isn't that.


Yeah, I was on that hype train too. I assume there is a good reason we didn't take him. Honestly, if he fell down to round 2 pick 9 after PFF saying he was the best edge in the class and being mocked so high for so long I think there were character/injury concerns with him that we haven't been made privy to. Great edge guys just don't fall that far for no reason whatsoever. We'll see what happens but I trust our process. Just remember, every other team had a chance to take him as well, so if he turns out to be an excellent edge guy you can't go yelling and screaming at our front office since everyone else passed on him in the first round too.


Yeah, this might be the guy we regret. I would have been happy with him in the late first early second, but definitely not at 9 and not at 14 either which is where he went. He's just too damn raw, not a natural bend guy, more power than quick, but his productivity was great. His narrative was always that he has a high ceiling - read: his technique sucks ass - and in general I don't think edge is a place you can teach technique very well as opposed to interior DL. Bend especially you just can't teach.

Could’ve gotten any edge player with intact ACLs

I assume this is a dig at the Kentavious Street pick. I was meh on it, maybe he heals well maybe he doesn't. I also doubt they expect him to be a designated pass rusher, thats just not his game though he's got a decent move or two. There just weren't other guys on the board at that point, and they liked him so I get it. Its not like taking an ACL guy in the 2nd or something, he was taken at the end of the 4th, which was in the general vicinity of where he was on a lot of big boards even after his injury. I get that we all have some ACL pick PTSD, but not all of them suck, just Baalke's suck (Frank Gore). You can understand why they did it, when healthy hes a freak athlete with natural leverage and a hard worker. Like I said, meh. Who else was there? Edge sucked this year. The two most common ways to "beat" the draft are to take fliers on injured guys who otherwise would have gone earlier or to take small school guys. We did the former.

Also, we did that last year with Pita Taomoepenu (no ACL). I'm interested in seeing what he does this year.

This is what sports are for man, its a kids game we get to turn off real life for and enjoy. Best of luck with your life struggles, cancer's a bitch and you're going to kick its ass, we're all praying for you and your family.

7 points · 3 months ago

I assume that you meant that this country is so far to the right that someone like Sanders could never be considered centrist.

Which; I beg to differ. Aside from his own label of "Democratic Socialist" (which uses the term socialist wrong.), he is pretty centrist - even by US standard.

His "Medicare for everyone" goes very well for most people - except the elderly. They have been wrongfully told that policy would diminish their benefits.

Bernie was a little too far ahead of his time with his platform - but was REAL close. I was hoping that he could get the old people, the young people, and everyone else on board for a leadership that is for us common folks and not for the billionaires.

But as we saw during the general election in '16, the billionaires got their way. They couldn't lose at that point. Clinton - Trump - they win.

see more

You're conveniently forgetting the majority of Democrats like me who listened to the incessant rhetoric about the ills of trade and rich people and thought the guy was trying to start a class war and bring us back to the economic 1930s where protectionism ran rampant. Bernie is absolutely an extremist, just not on healthcare. I must not have been the only person who noticed his TPP rhetoric was the same as Trump's, he lost the primaries and to be honest I don't think he would have won even without the DNC bias. That's just what the Russian trolls wanted everyone to think.

3 points · 3 months ago

That's a very superficial understanding of Sander's platform.

In Economics 101: Macroeconomics, we are taught that free trade is always good. Everyone benefits. But as we see in fact, it benefits mostly the very top. That is why most our wages have stagnated and why most of us are downwardly mobile.

His whole platform was getting the rest of us in on the gains from trade.

DeWalt closes a plant in the US, sends everything to Mexico and we get what? A bunch of folks clamoring for jobs at Walmart.

Whatever. Class war? Yeah, there is one coming. And there are over 300 million guns in the USA. It'll be great fun for all! /s

see more

That's a very superficial understanding of basic economics.

Free trade is good. Everyone does benefit. Implementing protectionism to cure income inequality is like banning kids from bringing cupcakes to school for their birthday because they aren't all the same size. Now nobody gets cupcakes at all.

Free trade isn't why our wages have stagnated, technological irrelevance and a lack of increase in worker productivity has stagnated blue collar wages. You don't educate the lower class for 30 years, they don't make more money for 30 years - its that simple.

This is why I said it was a class war - protectionism only makes sense if you want to do whats worst for the rich, not do whats best for the poor. Then its stupid.

"Getting the rest of us in on the gains from trade" makes sense when you talk about raising taxes to support education, jobs programs, and infrastructure, not cutting off those trade gains.

Limiting our economic ties with the world and yelling about the grand larceny of rich people was the separation between Bernie and the rest of the democratic party. Obama always wanted free community college, college debt relief, and single payer. Bernie was the only fact denying populist.

Load more comments

Honestly this whole season just felt like the first half of Kloppos last. I'm glad its over. Out with the old, in with the new. See Y'all in a few months

Incredible DL coach and underrated HC. If you compare what he accomplished with what he had to work with compared to the season before and the season after, it's actually amazing. Win total dropped by 3 from Harbaugh to him, but that was also the year the roster apocalypse happened. Does anyone think Patrick Willis, Justin Smith, Frank Gore, Mike Iupati, Anthony Davis, and Michael Crabtree are worth about 3 wins? Then the following year Chip Kelly got 2 wins out of a similar roster.

I hope he gets another chance one day, because frankly he deserves it. Especially if he's able to make more contacts around the league so he's able to put together a decent staff (that was arguably his biggest weakness--his staff was put together of 49ers coaches from the fired staff that had nothing better to do and guys from his NFL Europe days).

see more

Been saying it for a while now. Dude was screwed by the media after the press conference fart, totally underrated on the field. Players loved him

Well that's just silly. Seeing over the line is a real issue. If you're short you have to find lanes to throw from and it generally has to be schemed by the oc. It's definitely more difficult.

see more

Everybody says this. I would guess that being shorter than the line just forces short QBs to rely more heavily on their knowledge of the playbook and the routes run. Steve Young, HOF, 5'11", 3rd highest career QBR of all time, when he talks about this describes a TD play to Jerry Rice against the Ravens where he got a glimpse of Jerry getting a good start to his route, then literally closed his eyes, and threw the ball to where he thought Jerry would be.

It might be harder for short QBs to be mediocre and throw to open guys, but I think it probably forces them to play the game the right way: study defences, know your playbook, throw to the guys that are schemed open.

You know, call me crazy but I think Tomsula was doing relatively ok considering the mess he inherited. I feel like Kelley was a less effective coach than Tomsula was.

see more

I agree. Hes aged pretty well considering he won more games than kelly with geep chryst as OC and gabbert at QB. No clue how he did that. I bet he gets a DC job in a few years

Death, lowering taxes, and Marco Rubio using poll numbers as a spiritual guide

Fruit from a poisonous tree.

They were called there under false pretenses. It can be argued that any evidence found is tainted because the police were called in illegally.

Don't know if it'll work in court, but I imagine that's the argument they'll use.

see more

^ this guy felonys

I for one would be extremely whelmed by this hire

2 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago

Its cool what you did here. I'm in grad school to do data science professionally so thinking about this problem is pretty interesting to me and I'm glad you put this together. That said... I really think these charts are worthless, mostly because I think basing draft performance on mocks is like deciding how much fun you had on vacation from comparing what you did on vacation with what a group of 150 vacation planners thought you were going to do on vacation before you went. Don't take that criticism the wrong way, I have the same gripes with PFF and every analyst on air when they talk about draft value, its just a misunderstanding about what a mock draft actually is and what data we can pull out of it.

First, a problem with your charts specifically: the rankings are based off of average draft position. Now I'll admit, I can't really think of a better way to do this other than some distribution based weighting, but its much harder for ADP to be higher than the value of guys selected in the early rounds or much lower than the value of guys selected in lower rounds. For example, no matter who you select at 1, their average is lower than 1. I suspected, and it seems to be true, that a decent amount of the teams who won on your chart had fewer (so higher variance) and/or more later round picks than other teams. Here are a few of the ROI "winners" with their rounds listed: Titans (1,2,5,6), Eagles (2,44,6,7), Jags (1,2,3,4,6,77), Texans (333,4,666,7), Packers (1,2,3,4,555,6,777). I haven't gone through every team, and I'm sure there are outliers, but all these teams are high win, so lower picks within rounds, have more picks later in the draft, or have fewer than 7 picks.

Second, a problem with any analysis of this type: mock draft position is just a really strange thing to base value off of in the first place. It makes sense why people do it, but the math of it makes no sense at all. Mock drafts are guesses of where players will go. They are not rankings of how valuable the players are. Ex. Baker Mayfield might have been taken later in mock drafts than Nelson simply because of what the teams at the top needed (Colts don't need a QB and might be unwilling to trade back). Even if we assume Nelson becomes a HOF guard, he will be less valuable than the 16th best QB in the league, yet for whatever reason I doubt people would take an Andy Dalton or Teddy Bridgewater above him. Mocks are guesses of what will happen in the real draft, so they should be evaluated based on what actually happened, not the other way around. When we criticize a GM for taking a player higher than they were mocked, we are basically getting mad at them because we as a group were wrong about what we thought they would do. That's not just silly, its mathematically wrong to assign value to a function from the error of an approximate fit of that function, it makes no sense.

While I expect that most think this chart is a measure of how effectively teams allocated their draft capital to get the guys they wanted relative to where the guys actually went, I suspect it really just tells us who drafted guys later than we expected them to.

Original Poster10 points · 3 months ago

I really think these charts are worthless, mostly for statistical reasons and what the metrics are based on.

I mean, I don't really disagree with you. I do like this a lot better than the draft report cards you put up but ultimately it's impossible to know who did well in the draft without waiting 3-5 years.

For what it's worth, I do think you are misunderstanding how I came about these results.

Here are three of the top four winners with their rounds listed: Titans (1,2,5,6), Eagles (2,44,6,7), Texans (333,4,666,7).

I think looking at just the top four and seeing this is a bit misleading. If you compare the 2nd and 4th columns in this screenshot you can see that there is a pretty good mix between total pick value and the ROI. It's certainly not perfect and teams with few picks can certainly boost themselves by making a couple of good ones, but the Broncos and Giants are both in the top 10 in terms of ROI and the top 4 in terms of capital. The sheer value associated with higher selections kind of counterbalances the ability to improve your ROI with good late picks. That said, it's nowhere near perfect.

mock draft position is just a really strange thing to base value off of in the first place.

A small caveat here: this is based off of big boards, not mock drafts. That's an important decision because big boards say who the best players are not what teams we project the players to go to like mocks do.

Even if we assume Nelson becomes a HOF guard, he will be less valuable than the 16th best QB in the league, yet for whatever reason I doubt people would take an Andy Dalton or Teddy Bridgewater above him

I very much agree with this and it is a problem that I tried to correct somewhat, although it was with a quick and dirty adjustment. The two tables at the top of the post have a positional modifier applied to each pick, and that positional modifier is proportional based on the contract value of veteran players at the position. This gives QBs a significant boost and detracts from specialists and RBs among others.

One thing I do not account for that is certainly a gap is positional need. Obviously, a team that has a QB would not need to draft another one in the first. The Rams don't really need to draft a defensive tackle, as they are flush at that position. The Bills were desperate for a QB. Accounting for these things would be very useful, but I'm not really sure how to approach it.

When we criticize a GM for taking a player higher than they were mocked, we are basically getting mad at them because we as a group were wrong about what we thought they would do.

Because these are big boards, and not mock drafts, this isn't as relevant, but it does apply some. Many of the big media guys (Mayock, Kiper, etc.) are very tuned in to the thinking of certain teams, so they will put players higher or lower based on what they're hearing. With that being said, many of the boards are independent evaluators using their own methods to value players. Therefore, I would argue that this consensus isn't really what we thought the teams would do but rather which players the draft community thought were good.

Obviously, this also has limitations as we can be wrong about people (the NFL can too!) and outsiders don't have control over how a player is used.

At the end of the day, I think this is better than a lot of draft grade content but that's about it.

see more

Oof that was stupid of me, especially in such a high effort comment. I didn't see that you did this based on big boards. My first point still stands however - I think the ROI metric especially is irreparably flawed.

If you compare the 2nd and 4th columns in this screenshot you can see that there is a pretty good mix between total pick value and the ROI. It's certainly not perfect and teams with few picks can certainly boost themselves by making a couple of good ones, but the Broncos and Giants are both in the top 10 in terms of ROI and the top 4 in terms of capital.

Thats not what I was arguing, I'll rephrase the argument so that it fits with big boards instead of mocks since it still holds.

My argument is that its very hard to pick highly ranked players too early but comparatively easy to pick them late. This gives an advantage in your scoring to teams that have lower draft picks overall (not in terms of cumulative value, literally more picks, later in the draft). The first overall pick has exactly 0 players with which it can achieve a positive score if I am understanding your selection metrics correctly.

Actually, again if I understand how you did value scaling, I think picking Saquon or Rosen at 1 would still lose value for the Browns, even though they are the top two players even after scaling. Moreover, because neither the logarithmic scaling of the JJ chart nor the positional importance is taken into account on the big board, the holders of top 10 overall picks are incredibly unlikely to pick the top players (you don't take guards at 2), and will be overly punished for it. Meanwhile, any end of the first round pick has a huge opportunity to be a positive pick, and due to the scaling, score highly.

There are exceptions. The Broncos and Cardianls were the only top 10 ROI teams with top 10 picks (for this I used non-adjusted JJ board), but even they were barely top 10, and they used their first picks on big board favorites. Out of the top 7 teams for ROI on the JJ chart, the earliest pick is the Packers at 18. Here is a quick lazy chart I made with Y axis being each team's first overall pick and the X axis being the team's ROI rank on your chart. Two of the top three teams didn't even have first round picks. This is pretty statistically unlikely. Nine teams of the thirty two picked in the top 10, the odds that none of the 7 top teams is a top 10 pick with random sampling and no replacement is 7.3%. Possible, but unlikely.

Now I totally missed that this was big boards. That does invalidate most of what I was saying with regards to the ranking. I don't think the scaling was good though. I'd like to point out that even after scaling Saquon down 8%, he still would have a JJ value of 2760 making him the top player in the draft. If I were to do this I think I would scale your positional scaling based on how the value chart itself scales.

So if I were to use the ROI analysis you've made, my conclusion would be to spend a low first round pick on a high big board, low positional value player.

Plenty of teams have it worse than us.

If by plenty you mean a small handful. Only 5 teams registered fewer sacks than we did last year and our best pass rusher was old man Dumervil who is now forcibly retired.

see more

We were 0-9 before we got our shit turned around. We were 2-14 the year before. This roster has significant holes, I think we've gotta improve pass rush too, but if the right guy for the team isn't there why pick a misfit? We all wanted Harold Landry/Key/Sweat, I get it, but what if they weren't right for the team and there were concerns/scheme fit issues we didn't know about? We won't fill every hole in the roster in two years, the NFL just doesn't work like that.

We don't need WRs at all, our WRs are fine, thats just what the media says we need. Also shanahan hates big WRs. WR1 is a stupid concept that doesn't exist, it literally just means WR who gets targeted a lot.

Pass rushers we need, but this draft class kinda sucks. Nobody looked great aside from Landry (who fell, so someone probably knows something we don't), and Chubb who wasn't there when we picked. I suspect they'll see how Pita T does and survive on FAs for another year here. We are still in a rebuild.

Guards yeah. You can get those later or off the street if you need to, but if there isn't anyone they really like its not worth drafting them.

My advice: grab a beer, chill out, and trust the guys who get paid to do this for a living.

Cake day
September 23, 2013
Trophy Case (2)
Four-Year Club

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.