Quote:There is a difference between reading the tea leaves due to your league contacts in the last minute to determine what team takes what player at what point in the first round and determining which prospects will have successful NFL careers.

 

If I say Bridgewater is a top 3 pick who will have a HOF career, he gets picked in the top 3 and bombs, was I right?

 

If you say Bridgewater is vastly overrated, he drops to the bottom of the first round, but has a career that warrants HOF consideration, were you right?

 

I don't know you, and I don't say this to insult you, but I think it's doubtful you have the league contacts Rick Gosselin, McClain, or Ketchman has.

 

Even with the contacts, it doesn't preclude them from being wrong when it comes to talent evaluation.  Ketchman is the same guy who hyped Beanie Wells and Rob Pettiti.  We all know how they turned out.

 

Predator summed it up quite well.

 

There are two parts to the equation.  Selection and development.  They are completely separate, even though we like to project at the selection phase, and reflect after the development phase.  But again, those are two separate entities.

 

The draft is about selection.  The idea is to get the best value.  Draft a player at his lowest (not highest) point.  It's counter-intuitive, but true.  There's no reason to select a player higher than necessary, especially at the expense of passing up better talent elsewhere.

 

What happens after he's selected tells the tale of your scouting and development.  Everybody misses, but to miss after poor value is both a franchise and a career killer.  Instead, if you've gotten good value then you should be able to weather the misses that are sure to come no matter how good you are.

 

That's why I believe these fantasy "re-drafts" are silly.  If NE were to re-draft the year they took Brady, they'd select him where they did all over again.

 

You sound like you're asking for guarantees, but there simply aren't any.  Value selection seems the only prudent way to combat the uncertainty.  The risk must be offset by reward, and so sets the value.  Value being price worth paying versus the risk.  Sometimes I feel some of these discussions aren't very productive but rather end up being an exercise in talking in circles, an exercise in futility.  Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill.  When we're taking about an inexact science and philosophies, anyone can always talk themselves out of any plausible answer without really trying hard at all (just as easily as the rock falls back off the top of the hill.)

---