Shack Harris was a better talent evaluator than Genius Gene.

---

Shack Harris was a better talent evaluator than Genius Gene.

Agreed. 

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Shack Harris was a better talent evaluator than Genius Gene.

 

Maybe, or maybe not. He certainly was a better drafter, and that's an absolutely horrific testament to Gene's drafting abilities.

---

Predator and Deacon nail it!

 

Get the evaluations/rankings right, and the rest will take care of itself, irrespective of whether you use need or BAP.

 

Get the evaluations/rankings wrong, and it becomes a crapshoot at best, irrespective of whether you use need or BAP.

 

We aren't talking about getting the rankings right.  That is obvious.  We are talking about Gene being a BAP drafter which in my opinion he was not.  He drafted scared, didn't get value and reached on picks.  

---

Predator and Deacon nail it!

 

Get the evaluations/rankings right, and the rest will take care of itself, irrespective of whether you use need or BAP.

 

Get the evaluations/rankings wrong, and it becomes a crapshoot at best, irrespective of whether you use need or BAP.

 

Why do you and I have this exact same discussion every year? I enjoy it as much as anyone, but it always amazes me that it seems as if people don't grasp that the key part in the whole draft process is the evaluation. Everything else stems from that.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Shack Harris was a better talent evaluator than Genius Gene.

 

So was Matt Millen.  And probably Michael Lombardi.  Pretty sure if we had a trained monkey pick players, we'd be better off right now.  In fact, I remember proving this some time back with randomized picks.

 

I'd say Gene Smith had a lot of bad luck when it came to picks not turning out to be what they should have been.  But then he drafted Alualu in the Top 10.  And a Punter in the 3rd.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Why do you and I have this exact same discussion every year? I enjoy it as much as anyone, but it always amazes me that it seems as if people don't grasp that the key part in the whole draft process is the evaluation. Everything else stems from that.

 

I don't know, TBH.

 

If you believe the "Ketchman's bad influence theory," he advocated BAP without really getting into the evaluation aspect, and fans who look up to him ran with it without considering the evaluation/ranking aspect, either.

 

Whether it's that or for some other reason, it seems this is always left out of the analysis.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

We aren't talking about getting the rankings right.  That is obvious.  We are talking about Gene being a BAP drafter which in my opinion he was not.  He drafted scared, didn't get value and reached on picks.  

 

But again, being a BAP drafter doesn't preclude those happenings, especially since being a BAP drafter does not mean you got the rankings right.  If you get the rankings wrong and you are a BAP drafter, you can still draft scared, still not get value, and still reach on picks. 

 

The evaluation is inextricably linked to all of the the different draft approaches.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

We aren't talking about getting the rankings right.  That is obvious.  We are talking about Gene being a BAP drafter which in my opinion he was not.  He drafted scared, didn't get value and reached on picks.  

 

Gene Smith absolutely had a BAP philosophy.

 

He drafted scared -- because he thought he was going to lose the player he had fallen in love with, and felt was the best player available.  Otherwise he wouldn't have fallen in love.  The team has been so depleted of talent recently that you could make a case for any GM picking for need.  

 

You don't select Tyson Alualu in the Top 10 because of 'need'.  You draft him there because you feel everyone else has undervalued him, and you want to get to him first.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

But again, being a BAP drafter doesn't preclude those happenings, especially since being a BAP drafter does not mean you got the rankings right.  If you get the rankings wrong and you are a BAP drafter, you can still draft scared, still not get value, and still reach on picks. 

 

The evaluation is inextricably linked to all of the the different draft approaches.

 

Yes, but I'm looking at a pattern Bullseye of Gene saying one thing and doing another.  Talk is cheap.  I'm looking at his actions.  Does any of us really know 100% bet our life that Gene wasn't what he said he was?  No, but logically based on him saying one thing and doing another over a period of time, I don't think he was a BAP drafter.  I don't care what he said.  I'm looking at his draft.  I don't believe Alualu was BAP on his board.  I think he reached for him.  I think he reached on a punter as well.  He said he was going to maximize value and he didn't.  He said he was going to stock pile draft picks and he didn't.  All we can go by are his actions.  

---

Actually it is. Through the use of the contra-positive of what he said "I didn't take a non-punter because I didn't want someone that wasn't needed as a starter" it becomes logically clear. He didn't declare he was a needs drafter, but transitively he said he was a needs drafter by saying he drafted a guy out of need rather than graded ability.

Now you are quoting him for things he didn't even say.

 

You are creating the connection between what he said and the concept of need by paraphrasing what he is saying to suit your purpose. You are basically creating fiction to back your point. That's conjecture and that isn't considered evidence under any legal or scientific circumstance.

---

Gene Smith absolutely had a BAP philosophy.

 

He drafted scared -- because he thought he was going to lose the player he had fallen in love with, and felt was the best player available.  Otherwise he wouldn't have fallen in love.  The team has been so depleted of talent recently that you could make a case for any GM picking for need.  

 

You don't select Tyson Alualu in the Top 10 because of 'need'.  You draft him there because you feel everyone else has undervalued him, and you want to get to him first.  

 

So everyone undervalue the punter?  And Blaine Gabbert wasn't a need and there weren't any players rated higher than him?  What happened when we moved up for Blackmon?  That wasn't a need?  He was absolutely not a BAP drafter.  He may have drafted at times people he thought were BAP, but that isn't what we are talking about.  I'm looking at an entire body of work.  Of course, this is merely my opinion.

---

Also, disagree with the notion that Shack was a better talent evaluator.  Better GM, yes.  Shack may have been, but you can't base it on Gene being a GM.  There is a lot more to a GM than evaluating talent.

---

I don't know, TBH.

 

If you believe the "Ketchman's bad influence theory," he advocated BAP without really getting into the evaluation aspect, and fans who look up to him ran with it without considering the evaluation/ranking aspect, either.

 

Whether it's that or for some other reason, it seems this is always left out of the analysis.

 

I get the feeling that Vic was a "timesheet" guy, the kind that I had a lot of experience with while in the Service. To "timesheet" guys, if you put in hours then the work is good. You can't possibly do work without lots and lots of time. Therefore, if a guy spent 90 hours a week poring over game tape until his eyes goes crossed then his work is good! If a guy only puts in 40 hours, then his work is not as good as the 90 hour guy regardless of any type of measurement.

 

Gene put in early hours and did lots and lots of film study. That meant Vic thought he put out good work.

 

I don't know if hundreds of hours of study is what makes a good draft and to be honest I don't care. Just get it right.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Yes, but I'm looking at a pattern Bullseye of Gene saying one thing and doing another.  Talk is cheap.  I'm looking at his actions.  Does any of us really know 100% bet our life that Gene wasn't what he said he was?  No, but logically based on him saying one thing and doing another over a period of time, I don't think he was a BAP drafter.  I don't care what he said.  I'm looking at his draft.  I don't believe Alualu was BAP on his board.  I think he reached for him.  I think he reached on a punter as well.  He said he was going to maximize value and he didn't.  He said he was going to stock pile draft picks and he didn't.  All we can go by are his actions.  

There is nothing in his actions that show he wasn't following BAP. You are making the assumption that he values things the same way as you or the talking heads do.

 

Besides, what would be his motivation to lie about the reason he made a pick? There is no stigma attached to being a "needs" drafter. Many front offices regularly admit to that motivation in the draft. All that matters is whomever you pick turns out to be good.

---

Now you are quoting him for things he didn't even say.

 

You are creating the connection between what he said and the concept of need by paraphrasing what he is saying to suit your purpose. You are basically creating fiction to back your point. That's conjecture and that isn't considered evidence under any legal or scientific circumstance.

 

Now it's 100% clear you have no idea what I'm talking about.

---

Yes, but I'm looking at a pattern Bullseye of Gene saying one thing and doing another.  Talk is cheap.  I'm looking at his actions.  Does any of us really know 100% bet our life that Gene wasn't what he said he was?  No, but logically based on him saying one thing and doing another over a period of time, I don't think he was a BAP drafter.  I don't care what he said.  I'm looking at his draft.  I don't believe Alualu was BAP on his board.  I think he reached for him.  I think he reached on a punter as well.  He said he was going to maximize value and he didn't.  He said he was going to stock pile draft picks and he didn't.  All we can go by are his actions.  

 

But that's the point.

 

Alualu may well have been the best player on his board even though we perceive him to be a reach.  Smith did not maximize value.  But those results, in themselves, do not necessarily mean Smith was a needs drafter.

 

If the flaw was in the evaluation process, he can wrongly conclude Alualu was anything remotely resembling a good player and worth the 10th overall spot, rank his board accordingly, then legitimately (but tragically and mistakenly) think he's picking BAP and getting good value with the pick.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

So everyone undervalue the punter?  And Blaine Gabbert wasn't a need and there weren't any players rated higher than him?  What happened when we moved up for Blackmon?  That wasn't a need?  He was absolutely not a BAP drafter.  He may have drafted at times people he thought were BAP, but that isn't what we are talking about.  I'm looking at an entire body of work.  Of course, this is merely my opinion.

 

Yes, we 'needed' a Quarterback.  But you are -- to quote Sherlock Holmes -- twisting the facts to fit your theory, rather than twisting your theory to fit the facts.  What precludes Blaine Gabbert from being the highest rated player on Gene's board?  Absolutely nothing!  Yes, we needed a Quarterback.  But by that logic, any General Manager that drafts BAP that happens to fit a need, isn't drafting BAP at all.  That's a logical fallacy.  

 

It's not as if some people didn't believe the Panthers would select Gabbert over Cam Newton.

 

Again with Blackmon, you presume that that precludes Blackmon from being a BAP pick.  Again -- that would invalidate the BAP philosophy entirely, because it would mean that you would have to take BAP EXCEPT at a position of need in order to be considered BAP drafting.  

 

Then you go on to say "He absolutely was not a BAP drafter" to follow up with "of course this is merely my opinion."  You can't have it both ways.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

There is nothing in his actions that show he wasn't following BAP. You are making the assumption that he values things the same way as you or the talking heads do.


Besides, what would be his motivation to lie about the reason he made a pick? There is no stigma attached to being a "needs" drafter. Many front offices regularly admit to that motivation in the draft. All that matters is whomever you pick turns out to be good.

I don't think it was a lie so much as he believed he was one thing, but did another. He also said he was going to acquire more picks, but instead traded away picks. Why say that and do another?

---

Yes, we 'needed' a Quarterback.  But you are -- to quote Sherlock Holmes -- twisting the facts to fit your theory, rather than twisting your theory to fit the facts.  What precludes Blaine Gabbert from being the highest rated player on Gene's board?  Absolutely nothing!  Yes, we needed a Quarterback.  But by that logic, any General Manager that drafts BAP that happens to fit a need, isn't drafting BAP at all.  That's a logical fallacy.  

 

It's not as if some people didn't believe the Panthers would select Gabbert over Cam Newton.

 

Again with Blackmon, you presume that that precludes Blackmon from being a BAP pick.  Again -- that would invalidate the BAP philosophy entirely, because it would mean that you would have to take BAP EXCEPT at a position of need in order to be considered BAP drafting.  

 

Then you go on to say "He absolutely was not a BAP drafter" to follow up with "of course this is merely my opinion."  You can't have it both ways.  

 

Technically it's possible for a Needs guy to claim to be a BAP guy and not be lying if they rank "best" using need as a criteria. Still it doesn't really matter. Ideological purity dictates that you don't put need into the evaluation if you really want to take the best talent. It's pretty clear from Gene's own comments that he was at least considering Need in his draft board order. So regardless of whether he really was taking the top guy left on his board it doesn't matter if his board was ordered wrong to start with.

---