Yeah -- that's about the long and short of it.

He wasn't a great 1.1 from a historical perspective. Most guys that go that high have been better players.

But that's not really a fair review. What would be fair is 'where does 1.1 relate in relation to other guys taken in the top 10...'

Because anyone outside of the top 10 in any given draft was never in consideration by ANYONE for the first overall pick. So saying some guy that got drafted in the 2nd should've gone 1.1 is bullshit hindsight nonsense.

But to evaluate the pick it has to be relative. And Fisher was the 2nd best pick in that group; behind only Lane Johnson. Did they get it EXACTLY right? No -- history says Johnson's a better pick. Did they get it WRONG? (I.E. Luke Joeckel) -- **** no.

And I suspect in most of those drafts there were 'better' players than Fisher who went 1.1 but were clearly inferior to other guys who were in legitimate consideration for that spot. Those picks are 'worse' than the Chiefs did with Fisher.

They managed that pick about as well as could've been reasonably expected.

A smile a day keeps the patella in play!

This is my big problem.

The response to evidence being presented about this injury varies from "could you explain it to me like I'm 5?" to "I dont know anything and I'm proud of it!"

But I honestly don't know what I expected from middle to late aged dudes on an online Chiefs board, so I have to blame myself there at some point.

In the article they cited the fact we passed on Lane Johnson for Derrick as the reason he was such a bad pick.

I nearly sprained by eyes rolling them.

LMAO

OK now this is a study I can get behind!

The NFL only averages 2 of these injuries per year and there is no career to study in many cases.

You can't do a study on guys that played 10 years after this injury when it hasn't happened. The number is 0.

Every time I see Barkevious Mingo I think of Frank Caliendo's Mel Kiper routine: "Barkevious Mingo. Don't know anything about him, just like saying his name."

This is a very good point, and one I came here to post about. We all know medicine, and especially sports medicine is always advancing by leaps and bounds. Can we really use data from 20 years ago to predict what will happen now?

I know this player is a risk and I admit that I'm concerned. But I'm also optimistic because if this works, it will be one of the best picks one could possibly hope for. Time will tell. /fingers crossed

I'm curious about this, but if the character concerns were serious he would have been moved to wide receiver years ago.

The CHIEFS took a home run swing. I hope they didn’t miss.

Which is where I get to the irony of all that.

I mean -- I'm consistent. You can go into that god-awful COVID thread where I argued loudly that being literate and having critical thinking skills is a really good substitute for credentials in some of this stuff.

I hate appeals to authority. Always have. "You think you know more than Burt Valanche!?!?" is the most braindead bullshit take this board has to offer. And it offers it...lots.

Nobody - NOBODY - myself, Crow, Duncan, or anyone else that has come out against this pick, has asserted a medical opinion. We haven't purported to. We haven't hid the ball there.

It's been...math. It's history. It's been a combination of both.

"Well where'd you get YOUR degree?!?!"

Well shit, I actually have a lot of training in stats and methods. Took several classes on it because I liked the professor. I'm pretty good at extrapolating tables and data. And that's all any of us have done here.

Which is why I keep saying that the only way to directly address these studies is to distinguish them. You have to ignore them because {insert the reason here}.

And MAYBE that's appropriate. Depending on said reason. But "you're not a doctor" isn't a reason. It's an end run.

Maybe there's been advances in this surgery that happened in the last 2 years that don't show up in the data set -- we've acknowledged that. Maybe there's been advances in imaging and diagnostics that give us better insight into the status of the recovery than guys previously had and those allow us to know that he already stands apart from that data set. We've acknowledged that.

And maybe Andy Reid went into that draft hell bent on picking a LT in the 1st round and just blew the data set off. Oddly, none of y'all wanna acknowledge that. The possibility has equal merit and thus far equal substantiation to anything being presented on the other side. Maybe the team hated the draft board and decided that they'd be fine with the 85% chance that this pick amounts to dick because they don't see anything safe enough with the ceiling to justify taking instead.

Maybe. I dunno. Nor does anyone jerking themselves off over the pick.

The issue is that a whole bunch of folks seem to want me to start and/or end a post with "In my opinion" and maybe attach my CV while I'm at it. Why? You know it's my opinion -- I'm typing it. And if you don't know my CV by now...well fellas, I talk a LOT and I've been here for about 2 decades now. Pay attention. I have no inclination to litigate it any time I post a contrary opinion.

We want him nasty - he plays in the trenches. These "character concerns" are so important that no one has bothered to mention what they are. Anywhere.

My concerns are the exact opposite of that tweet.

They might miss, but I'll never give them shit about doing so, especially at pick 32.

Nah - they trickled through the draft forum at some point.

Like I said -- I was already out, so I didn't give them any further thought. But they're out there. Nobody ever puts names on that shit, but several folks mentioned it and specifically articulated the concerns. I think it was Brugler's draft guide that had the most comprehensive take on them.