(11-10-2023, 10:48 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(11-10-2023, 10:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: This is what confuses me about what you are saying.  

"Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect"  < I copied and pasted your exact words.  

If they are not correct more often than incorrect, then they would be incorrect at least as often as they are correct, and maybe incorrect more often than they are correct.  Which would make scouting completely worthless.  But then you say "I never said scouting was worthless."  But, as I illustrated, you did.  

And then you say, "I don't want to gamble my greatest capital on positions that have crap value in the league..."  But you also said, in an earlier post, unless it's a really great player.  Which means you agree with me that the decision is based on a combination of positional value and the talent level of the player being considered.  

I think at this point you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, because you actually agree with me.  

I was explaining an aspect of the draft to you that you clearly mistated. 

You were claiming that scouting was much more accurate in it's findings and subsequent f.o. decisions than it actually is. 

They get it wrong A LOT.  I gave you numbers that flew in the face of your inaccurate statements. 

That isn't saying scouting is worthless.  Holy Hell. You took a leap there. They still have to TRY to get it right. 
Take away the scouting and they'd REALLY screw it up.

And no - I don't agree with you. Hell, you're hardly making any sense at this point. 
The outlier early RB pick I've referenced would probably happen once every 7-10 years - looking back on players I thought "maybe just maybe that guy is the next truly great RB" 

It would be too rare to be anything more than a brief deviation from standard practice.