1729 replies to this topic

[GabeFerguson]

I'm convinced the Ravens preferred Tunsil until the draft began and then took him off of their board.  No idea how much lower Stanley was ranked, but I'd wager he wasn't any lower than 5th overall.  Tunsil could've been anywhere between 1 and 4, my guess is he was 2 or 3.  All speculation, but I'm comfortable with my opinions here until any further info comes out (which it won't at this point).

 

All that said, it still doesn't change Stanley's profile.  If he was viewed as a safe bet, or someone with a high floor, on draft night, he's still that same person.  "Safe pick" doesn't in any way mean or suggest "will never suffer minor injuries".

I agree with this. My point is that going in with the approach/mindset of risk aversion is hurting the team. Not because of the injuries, but because of missed opportunity. The injuries to Stanley and Kaufusi are bad luck/part of football/whatever, but it underlies the point I am trying to make that even when you make "safe picks", there is still inherently a ton of risk involved, and the team is missing on players because of it. 

 

Maybe in the long run it works out for the team, but I tend to think that passing on greater talent is going to be a detriment.

[Mackus]

I don't think anyone can consistently identify differences in "talent" between guys just a few picks apart and even wider as you get deeper in the draft. Because it's worthless to just identify who is better today, it's all about projection. More about getting lucky (and having a guy develop into his best case profile versus mid-tier or not develop at all) than it is being able to identify if the consensus #6 guy is more talented than the consensus #4 guy. At least as far as "talent" translates to "future on-field production".

Even if they are risk averse, which i dont necessary agree with, I don't think risk aversion has anything to do with it.

[GabeFerguson]

I don't think anyone can consistently identify differences in "talent" between guys just a few picks apart and even wider as you get deeper in the draft. These guys are very nearly identical. More about getting lucky (and having a guy develop into his best case profile versus mid-tier or not develop at all) than it is being able to identify if the consensus #6 guy is more talented than the consensus #4 guy. At least as far as "talent" translates to "on-field production".

Even if they are risk averse, which i dont necessary agree with, I don't think risk aversion has anything to do with it.

Ask anyone who evaluated Tunsil and Stanley, or just look up the scouting reports. They aren't close to identical. That's like saying Kershaw and Lester are almost the same because they are lefties who had really low ERAs. 

[Mackus]

And the "anybody who evaluated Player X and Player Y" are wrong every year. How often is the best player in he draft one of the first few picks? Usually it's someone later who maximizes their potential.

While you want your team to take the guys they think have the most potential and the best chances of optimizing that potential, it's basically a giant crapshoot. Odds (evaluation) gives you the best chance, but guarantees nothing. There is limited sustainable skill here in determining who will become the best players down the road. All of these pros are pretty close to each other in the skill, I'd argue any organization that is "drafting well" over a several year period is largely getting pretty lucky. Like the Ravens for their first 5+ years of existence.

[GabeFerguson]

Sure, there is an element of luck, but teams have huge scouting departments for a reason. It's foolhardy to insinuate that luck plays just as big a part in the process as identifying talent.

[GabeFerguson]

To take that logic a step further, why not just trade back every time and accumulate as many picks as possible if it's just a matter of lucking into the right guys?

 

It's simply not the case. 

 

There are very tangible traits and skills that the best players possess, and it is very possible to evaluate them. There are going to be intangibles involved as well, and those are by definition harder to evaluate. That doesn't mean the obvious should be ignored.

[Mackus]

To take that logic a step further, why not just trade back every time and accumulate as many picks as possible if it's just a matter of lucking into the right guys?

It's simply not the case.

There are very tangible traits and skills that the best players possess, and it is very possible to evaluate them. There are going to be intangibles involved as well, and those are by definition harder to evaluate. That doesn't mean the obvious should be ignored.

I think some teams do trade back and try to accumulate as many picks as possible. Or play the comp pick game to get those extra picks.

There are still levels, you wouldn't rather have a handful of 4th or 5th round picks over a #1. But I think it's really difficult to identify which of a handful of guys all rated closely together will end up being the best player.

All the scouting departments in the league can more or less sort the players into high first, 1st round, 2nd round, 3rd round, etc talent. That's the baseline. That's not something anyone off the street can do, it's a valuable skill, though highly interested amateurs can do this pretty well also. Picking between guys within each tier is nearly impossible. Certainly not possible for amateurs, IMO, largely because of the lack of more in depth information.

[GabeFerguson]

There are still levels

There was a level between Tunsil and Stanley.

[SportsGuy]

I don't care that we didn't get Tunsil.

I care that they didn't give up a third for Ramsey and that they didn't take Jack.

They valued Jack in the same area they drafted and they deemed Ramsey to be a guy to trade up for but yet they failed at doing either.

That was a mistake.

[Mackus]

Doesn't mean anything, but Ramsey just had a terrible series in the Thursday night game. Got ran over by Henry twice and then had his ankles broke leading to a TD.

Of course continually putting themselves in a position where a cornerback is asked to tackle Darien Henry is probably why the Jags are so bad. Bradley may get fired at halftime.