(05-05-2023, 08:19 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(05-05-2023, 06:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: If they got the same guy at #27 that they were going to draft at #24, and gained picks in the process, how is that a failure?  Or even if they had 4 guys they rated about the same, and got one of them at pick #27, how is that a failure?  Isn't it possible that trading down wasn't so much a "strategy" as it was an opportunity?  Free picks.  

We judge the draft like we're all-seeing, all-knowing gods of the draft.  When in reality, we don't have any clue about who these players are, or what went into these decisions.   Then we act like we're the smartest guy in the room, and would have done so much better than Trent Baalke did, but guess what?  I'm the smartest guy in the room, because I know that I don't know [BLEEP] about the draft or the players in it, compared to an NFL GM.

I know I've said it in the thread already, but their admitted intent with gaining the picks was to use them as currency to move up later.  Then they couldn't do it. 

Not sure how to explain that more plainly.

But if you accept their explanation, then you also have to accept that they lost nothing as a result, because they still took the player they had targeted all along.  It's like if someone hands me $10, and I intend to use it at the bar, but the bar is closed, have I failed?  Or have I gained $10?  

All this bull [BLEEP] about a "failed strategy" implies that they actually risked something, and lost something as a result, when actually, if you accept their explanation, they risked nothing and lost nothing, but gained extra picks for free.

---