It sounds like you don't realize they are all wrong about their scouting assessments very regularly and there are ways to mitigate  the damage that causes.

By eliminating scouting?  Drafting according to a formula?

Obviously, the scouting assessments are correct more often than they are incorrect and I base that on the fact that first round picks have a higher success rate than second round picks, which have a higher success rate than third round picks, and so on.

It's not one or the other, it's always both, and every team uses these formulas to some varying degree

They get some right, they get some wrong, but nobody is suggesting ignoring scouting, and only drafting by a formula, it is both

Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect

 It has already been posted in this thread - the percentage breakdown of players, that work out from every round
You should probably go back and take a peek at that
About 30% of first round picks get a contract with the team that signed them currently.

The percentages do not work in favor of front offices and it is helpful to understand how value changes positionally.

SCPR is "second contract pay ratio" and it tells us about the tendency of positions in various rounds to achieve a second contract and the increase in pay from one to the next.

Here's a graph and info from a study done by 33rd team.

• The Offensive Line provides perhaps the greatest market inefficiency. In this sample, 254 picks were used on positions on the offensive line including Guard, Tackle or players that switch between both positions. These picks tend to secure about ten times more guaranteed money on their second contracts. This is most likely due to successful mid to late round picks at these positions, perhaps showing that they can be available without using premium picks.
  
• DB, DT and TE are the next three most successful positions with regards to SCPR. Again, this may be due to the fact that mid to late round picks performance exceeds their draft position, which may be another position to select within the middle rounds.
  
• RB is the second-worst performing position with regards to SCPR. This is because running backs rarely secure large second contracts regardless of their draft position. It is very hard to justify a premium pick on a running back when even the best running backs are most likely only playing on that first contract.
  
• DE is surprisingly a poor performing positional group. With 159 picks in this category, it is possibly a combination of premium assets being used on these positions and picks being used to take flyers on athletes throughout the draft. The premium picks are hard to exceed SCPR because rookie contracts for first rounders being quite large and because taking flyers throughout the draft on a premium position can often lead to players getting ushered up a draft board higher than what their talent and tape warrant.
  

The data collected here was from every draft beginning in 2010 - ending with 2017

Recent trends have shown the RB position has become even further devalued since then.  

I'm not sure what is so offensive about saying 'I'm glad our staff won on their gamble spending a first rounder on a back selection, but I don't see 1st round back selections as the most efficient way to build a roster," but apparently, based on you and others refusing to let this die, I'm somehow being  offensive for taking an analytical approach to acquiring running backs. 

  I just don't get the consternation. 

All the data supports my position. And I've even said "I'd probably still roll the dice if I was really certain the prospect was a generational talent." 
*shrug*

---

What really stood out to me was how fast he got fast. It was almost instant.

---

NYC I just wanted to say that I really enjoy your posts. I think though that saying it was 50/50 is a bit subjective and discredits the work and scouting the team does when evaluating draft picks. Not to mention the built in chemistry with Trevor from day one. Of course there is risk with nearly any pick and it’s key to hit on first rounds. But we did hit with ETN. The correct decision was made, objectively.

I definitely agree with the concept of being careful which RB you select/draft position. Some calculated risks must be taken to build a contender. It would be a shame right now if this team didn’t have a player like ETN.

That scouting team would've taken Kedarius Toney if he'd been there instead of ETN. One of the few times we actually know such a thing because of how bad Urbz was at being in the NFL. Fortunately the Giants scouts were even dumber than Meyer.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

By eliminating scouting?  Drafting according to a formula?

Obviously, the scouting assessments are correct more often than they are incorrect and I base that on the fact that first round picks have a higher success rate than second round picks, which have a higher success rate than third round picks, and so on.

It's not one or the other, it's always both, and every team uses these formulas to some varying degree

They get some right, they get some wrong, but nobody is suggesting ignoring scouting, and only drafting by a formula, it is both

Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect

 It has already been posted in this thread - the percentage breakdown of players, that work out from every round
You should probably go back and take a peek at that
About 30% of first round picks get a contract with the team that signed them currently.

The percentages do not work in favor of front offices and it is helpful to understand how value changes positionally.

SCPR is "second contract pay ratio" and it tells us about the tendency of positions in various rounds to achieve a second contract and the increase in pay from one to the next.

Here's a graph and info from a study done by 33rd team.

• The Offensive Line provides perhaps the greatest market inefficiency. In this sample, 254 picks were used on positions on the offensive line including Guard, Tackle or players that switch between both positions. These picks tend to secure about ten times more guaranteed money on their second contracts. This is most likely due to successful mid to late round picks at these positions, perhaps showing that they can be available without using premium picks.
  
• DB, DT and TE are the next three most successful positions with regards to SCPR. Again, this may be due to the fact that mid to late round picks performance exceeds their draft position, which may be another position to select within the middle rounds.
  
• RB is the second-worst performing position with regards to SCPR. This is because running backs rarely secure large second contracts regardless of their draft position. It is very hard to justify a premium pick on a running back when even the best running backs are most likely only playing on that first contract.
  
• DE is surprisingly a poor performing positional group. With 159 picks in this category, it is possibly a combination of premium assets being used on these positions and picks being used to take flyers on athletes throughout the draft. The premium picks are hard to exceed SCPR because rookie contracts for first rounders being quite large and because taking flyers throughout the draft on a premium position can often lead to players getting ushered up a draft board higher than what their talent and tape warrant.
  

The data collected here was from every draft beginning in 2010 - ending with 2017

Recent trends have shown the RB position has become even further devalued since then.  

I'm not sure what is so offensive about saying 'I'm glad our staff won on their gamble spending a first rounder on a back selection, but I don't see 1st round back selections as the most efficient way to build a roster," but apparently, based on you and others refusing to let this die, I'm somehow being  offensive for taking an analytical approach to acquiring running backs. 

  I just don't get the consternation. 

All the data supports my position. And I've even said "I'd probably still roll the dice if I was really certain the prospect was a generational talent." 
*shrug*

I'm not offended.  

You and I seem to agree on the main concept that the decision to draft a player has to be based on a combination of positional value and talent level.  But if you think that, you can't say scouting is worthless, because otherwise, how are you going to determine talent level?   And you are saying scouting is worthless, because you say they are wrong as often as they are right.  Besides, if you are going to throw out running backs, and instead pick a defensive end or something, which one are you going to pick without scouting them?  

I would also point out that the rate at which first round draft picks sign new contracts with the team that drafted them is not indicative of anything.  All it means is that some players reach free agency and their original team can't afford them.  A better indication would be the length of a career, or the trade value of a 1st round pick as opposed to a later pick.  I don't see anyone trading a first round pick for a third round pick.  (Maybe I misunderstand your point about first round picks, because it doesn't make any sense.)

---

It's not one or the other, it's always both, and every team uses these formulas to some varying degree

They get some right, they get some wrong, but nobody is suggesting ignoring scouting, and only drafting by a formula, it is both

Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect

 It has already been posted in this thread - the percentage breakdown of players, that work out from every round
You should probably go back and take a peek at that
About 30% of first round picks get a contract with the team that signed them currently.

The percentages do not work in favor of front offices and it is helpful to understand how value changes positionally.

SCPR is "second contract pay ratio" and it tells us about the tendency of positions in various rounds to achieve a second contract and the increase in pay from one to the next.

Here's a graph and info from a study done by 33rd team.




The data collected here was from every draft beginning in 2010 - ending with 2017

Recent trends have shown the RB position has become even further devalued since then.  

I'm not sure what is so offensive about saying 'I'm glad our staff won on their gamble spending a first rounder on a back selection, but I don't see 1st round back selections as the most efficient way to build a roster," but apparently, based on you and others refusing to let this die, I'm somehow being  offensive for taking an analytical approach to acquiring running backs. 

  I just don't get the consternation. 

All the data supports my position. And I've even said "I'd probably still roll the dice if I was really certain the prospect was a generational talent." 
*shrug*

I'm not offended.  

You and I seem to agree on the main concept that the decision to draft a player has to be based on a combination of positional value and talent level.  But if you think that, you can't say scouting is worthless, because otherwise, how are you going to determine talent level?   And you are saying scouting is worthless, because you say they are wrong as often as they are right.  Besides, if you are going to throw out running backs, and instead pick a defensive end or something, which one are you going to pick without scouting them?  

I would also point out that the rate at which first round draft picks sign new contracts with the team that drafted them is not indicative of anything.  All it means is that some players reach free agency and their original team can't afford them.  A better indication would be the length of a career, or the trade value of a 1st round pick as opposed to a later pick.  I don't see anyone trading a first round pick for a third round pick.  (Maybe I misunderstand your point about first round picks, because it doesn't make any sense.)

LOL

I give up 

I never said scouting was worthless. Please stop putting words in my [BLEEP] mouth Marty

You can't make an educated guess without at least trying to educate yourself first can you?

Concept is simple,
Every first  round pick is a gamble
I don't want to gamble my greatest  capital on positions that have crap value in the league

I'm not gonna say anymore about it because you're not having an honest conversation with me at this point

---

I'm not offended.  

You and I seem to agree on the main concept that the decision to draft a player has to be based on a combination of positional value and talent level.  But if you think that, you can't say scouting is worthless, because otherwise, how are you going to determine talent level?   And you are saying scouting is worthless, because you say they are wrong as often as they are right.  Besides, if you are going to throw out running backs, and instead pick a defensive end or something, which one are you going to pick without scouting them?  

I would also point out that the rate at which first round draft picks sign new contracts with the team that drafted them is not indicative of anything.  All it means is that some players reach free agency and their original team can't afford them.  A better indication would be the length of a career, or the trade value of a 1st round pick as opposed to a later pick.  I don't see anyone trading a first round pick for a third round pick.  (Maybe I misunderstand your point about first round picks, because it doesn't make any sense.)

LOL

I give up 

I never said scouting was worthless. Please stop putting words in my [BLEEP] mouth Marty

You can't make an educated guess without at least trying to educate yourself first can you?

Concept is simple,
Every first  round pick is a gamble
I don't want to gamble my greatest  capital on positions that have crap value in the league

I'm not gonna say anymore about it because you're not having an honest conversation with me at this point

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.  

---

LOL

I give up 

I never said scouting was worthless. Please stop putting words in my [BLEEP] mouth Marty

You can't make an educated guess without at least trying to educate yourself first can you?

Concept is simple,
Every first  round pick is a gamble
I don't want to gamble my greatest  capital on positions that have crap value in the league

I'm not gonna say anymore about it because you're not having an honest conversation with me at this point

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.

---

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.

"Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect"

^ Are those not your exact words?  If you want to say you didn't mean to say that, or that you misstated your position, that's okay.  But if you stand by that, then, as I illustrated, you are saying scouting is worthless.  And that's what confuses me about your position.  You say you never said scouting is worthless, but you said they are wrong as least as often as they are right, which inevitably means the scouting is worthless.  

My argument is with people who say they would never take a running back in the first round.  I think that is a stupid rule to follow.  The decision has to be made based on a combination of positional value and talent level.  And you have stated that you agree with that.   But for some reason you keep arguing.  

---

Any player can bust, but I think Etienne was one of the safest players in the draft to succeed and play at a high level in the NFL. 3 main things that make a elite prospect imo.  Elite production, elite athletism, and high character.  He had all 3

I agree. Travis Etienne finished 4th all time in CFB history in Touchdowns from Scrimmage coming out. Despite not even being in the top 200 all time in plays from scrimmage. 

He's the FBS record holder for most games scoring a touchdown with 46. Second place had 38. That record won't be broken for quite awhile. That stat is unbelievable. 46 games in college with a touchdown

I don't think people appreciated the caliber of RB prospect he was coming out. Only a handful of RBs over the last 20 years come close to his production and unique talent (speed/breaking tackles ability combo) as a draft prospect. If Travis didn't have Trevor Lawrence and couple other WRs (Tee Higgins/Justyn Ross/Hunter Renfrow) at Clemson sharing the limelight most people would recognize him as one the best RBs in CFB history. That's what the numbers clearly lay out. He only had 3 games with over 20 carries in his entire career at Clemson due to elite passing game and blowing a lot of teams out. He came a long ways as a receiving threat. He had brick hands as a FR. He played in the triple option coming out of HS so he never had to catch the ball. Once that part of his game developed he was really as complete as they come.

I do agree in general you want to stay away from RBs in the 1st round. Travis was clearly a 1st round player and talent though

---

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.

"Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect"

^ Are those not your exact words?  If you want to say you didn't mean to say that, or that you misstated your position, that's okay.  But if you stand by that, then, as I illustrated, you are saying scouting is worthless.  And that's what confuses me about your position.  You say you never said scouting is worthless, but you said they are wrong as least as often as they are right, which inevitably means the scouting is worthless.  

My argument is with people who say they would never take a running back in the first round.  I think that is a stupid rule to follow.  The decision has to be made based on a combination of positional value and talent level.  And you have stated that you agree with that.   But for some reason you keep arguing.  

I'm not arguing anything.

You're just being stupid.

Explaining to you how often positive scouting assessments don't work out to be good draft picks doesn't mean scouting is worthless.

The bolded statement above is 100% bull [BLEEP].

You are trying to falsely equate a statement about efficacy rate to an absolute statement of worthlessness. 
That doesn't make a lick of sense. 

You don't give up trying to evaluate something because you get some of them wrong, Marty. Why the hell do I have to explain that??

---

"Scouting Assessments are not correct more often than incorrect"

^ Are those not your exact words?  If you want to say you didn't mean to say that, or that you misstated your position, that's okay.  But if you stand by that, then, as I illustrated, you are saying scouting is worthless.  And that's what confuses me about your position.  You say you never said scouting is worthless, but you said they are wrong as least as often as they are right, which inevitably means the scouting is worthless.  

My argument is with people who say they would never take a running back in the first round.  I think that is a stupid rule to follow.  The decision has to be made based on a combination of positional value and talent level.  And you have stated that you agree with that.   But for some reason you keep arguing.  

I'm not arguing anything.

You're just being stupid.

Explaining to you how often positive scouting assessments don't work out to be good draft picks doesn't mean scouting is worthless.

The bolded statement above is 100% bull [BLEEP].

You are trying to falsely equate a statement about efficacy rate to an absolute statement of worthlessness. 
That doesn't make a lick of sense. 

You don't give up trying to evaluate something because you get some of them wrong, Marty. Why the hell do I have to explain that??

You're being obtuse.  

If, as you say, scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, then what is the value of a scouting assessment?  A person would look at a scouting assessment and have no idea if it is right or wrong.

---

I'm not arguing anything.

You're just being stupid.

Explaining to you how often positive scouting assessments don't work out to be good draft picks doesn't mean scouting is worthless.

The bolded statement above is 100% bull [BLEEP].

You are trying to falsely equate a statement about efficacy rate to an absolute statement of worthlessness. 
That doesn't make a lick of sense. 

You don't give up trying to evaluate something because you get some of them wrong, Marty. Why the hell do I have to explain that??

You're being obtuse.  

If, as you say, scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, then what is the value of a scouting assessment?  A person would look at a scouting assessment and have no idea if it is right or wrong.

So that you have a fighting chance at getting those "right" ones right.

LOL - you'd prefer to do zero due diligence on the picks?

---

You're being obtuse.  

If, as you say, scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, then what is the value of a scouting assessment?  A person would look at a scouting assessment and have no idea if it is right or wrong.

So that you have a fighting chance at getting those "right" ones right.

LOL - you'd prefer to do zero due diligence on the picks?

Absolutely not.  You're the one saying scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right.  Not me.  

So, you say, even if scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, you would still look at them, "so that you have a fighting chance of getting those "right" ones right."  But according to you, there's an even chance or better that the scouting assessment is wrong.   So, if you are right about that, what do you gain by looking at it?   

For example, if a scout says a DB is a good tackler, and scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, you have no idea if he's a good tackler or not, do you?  So what's the point of even looking at it?  According to you, it's worthless.  I don't know why you can't understand basic logic.  

BUT, since you go on to say you would still look at it (which I think would be wise), then you are trying to evaluate the talent level of the player, and merging that with the positional value to come to a decision.  Which is exactly my position.  You claim you are disagreeing with me, but you're not.  You're actually agreeing with me.

---

---

looking at trends is basic analysis.  Correlation is not causation.  But certain posters aren't wise enough to understand this.  So I googled something that would help those slower than us understand.  

Ice Cream Sales are linked with Violent Crimes....  It's been reported that as the rate of ice cream sales increase, the rate of violent crimes also increases ?  So clearly violent crimes and ice cream sales are related!  Of course a wise person understands that there is a 3rd variable.  Warmer weather makes people go out more frequently and interact with each other more.  And that additional variable is the reason why violent crimes happen more in the summer - and why ice cream sales happen more in the summer.  While it appears that ice cream and violence are causal to another, a smart person would understand that certain correlations do not imply that there is any relation as to why either variable occurs.  A mod would say that we should no longer sell ice cream.  A wise person would understand that, while they are correlated, they are not causal.  It's a difficult thing for certain people to understand.

Observing how certain trends are spurious and not connected to overall dynamics is difficult.

A person that looks at RB valuations over the last 4 years and then concludes that RBs are not important is as wise as those who assume if we ban ice cream there will be less violent crime.

ETN is the real deal.  He was a great pick up.  

CMC is the real deal too.  He was worth the trade.

Saquan Barkley was the real deal.  The Giants devalued him, and look at them now. 

There's a reason that our defense focuses on stopping the running game.  But don't tell that to the mods...  Shhh...  A good RB isn't a valued position, just stop selling ice cream...

---

looking at trends is basic analysis.  Correlation is not causation.  But certain posters aren't wise enough to understand this.  So I googled something that would help those slower than us understand.  

Ice Cream Sales are linked with Violent Crimes....  It's been reported that as the rate of ice cream sales increase, the rate of violent crimes also increases ?  So clearly violent crimes and ice cream sales are related!  Of course a wise person understands that there is a 3rd variable.  Warmer weather makes people go out more frequently and interact with each other more.  And that additional variable is the reason why violent crimes happen more in the summer - and why ice cream sales happen more in the summer.  While it appears that ice cream and violence are causal to another, a smart person would understand that certain correlations do not imply that there is any relation as to why either variable occurs.  A mod would say that we should no longer sell ice cream.  A wise person would understand that, while they are correlated, they are not causal.  It's a difficult thing for certain people to understand.

Observing how certain trends are spurious and not connected to overall dynamics is difficult.

A person that looks at RB valuations over the last 4 years and then concludes that RBs are not important is as wise as those who assume if we ban ice cream there will be less violent crime.

ETN is the real deal.  He was a great pick up.  

CMC is the real deal too.  He was worth the trade.

Saquan Barkley was the real deal.  The Giants devalued him, and look at them now. 

There's a reason that our defense focuses on stopping the running game.  But don't tell that to the mods...  Shhh...  A good RB isn't a valued position, just stop selling ice cream...

Maybe if you take a Statistics class you'll learn about correlation and causation. You clearly don't understand the concept.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So that you have a fighting chance at getting those "right" ones right.

LOL - you'd prefer to do zero due diligence on the picks?

Absolutely not.  You're the one saying scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right.  Not me.  

So, you say, even if scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, you would still look at them, "so that you have a fighting chance of getting those "right" ones right."  But according to you, there's an even chance or better that the scouting assessment is wrong.   So, if you are right about that, what do you gain by looking at it?   

For example, if a scout says a DB is a good tackler, and scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, you have no idea if he's a good tackler or not, do you?  So what's the point of even looking at it?  According to you, it's worthless.  I don't know why you can't understand basic logic.  

BUT, since you go on to say you would still look at it (which I think would be wise), then you are trying to evaluate the talent level of the player, and merging that with the positional value to come to a decision.  Which is exactly my position.  You claim you are disagreeing with me, but you're not.  You're actually agreeing with me.

I'm sorry you're so hung up on this. 
It is not my intention to agree or disagree with you. 
I was trying to get you to see the merit in a draft philosophy that involves not selecting devalued positions with the most valuable draft capital. 

It is clear to me you are never going to see that.

I'll bow out.

---

Absolutely not.  You're the one saying scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right.  Not me.  

So, you say, even if scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, you would still look at them, "so that you have a fighting chance of getting those "right" ones right."  But according to you, there's an even chance or better that the scouting assessment is wrong.   So, if you are right about that, what do you gain by looking at it?   

For example, if a scout says a DB is a good tackler, and scouting assessments are wrong as often as they are right, you have no idea if he's a good tackler or not, do you?  So what's the point of even looking at it?  According to you, it's worthless.  I don't know why you can't understand basic logic.  

BUT, since you go on to say you would still look at it (which I think would be wise), then you are trying to evaluate the talent level of the player, and merging that with the positional value to come to a decision.  Which is exactly my position.  You claim you are disagreeing with me, but you're not.  You're actually agreeing with me.

I'm sorry you're so hung up on this. 
It is not my intention to agree or disagree with you. 
I was trying to get you to see the merit in a draft philosophy that involves not selecting devalued positions with the most valuable draft capital. 

It is clear to me you are never going to see that.

I'll bow out.

And it's clear to me that you're never going to see the obvious flaw in that philosophy, so I will bow out, too.

---

---

looking at trends is basic analysis.  Correlation is not causation.  But certain posters aren't wise enough to understand this.  So I googled something that would help those slower than us understand.  

Ice Cream Sales are linked with Violent Crimes....  It's been reported that as the rate of ice cream sales increase, the rate of violent crimes also increases ?  So clearly violent crimes and ice cream sales are related!  Of course a wise person understands that there is a 3rd variable.  Warmer weather makes people go out more frequently and interact with each other more.  And that additional variable is the reason why violent crimes happen more in the summer - and why ice cream sales happen more in the summer.  While it appears that ice cream and violence are causal to another, a smart person would understand that certain correlations do not imply that there is any relation as to why either variable occurs.  A mod would say that we should no longer sell ice cream.  A wise person would understand that, while they are correlated, they are not causal.  It's a difficult thing for certain people to understand.

Observing how certain trends are spurious and not connected to overall dynamics is difficult.

A person that looks at RB valuations over the last 4 years and then concludes that RBs are not important is as wise as those who assume if we ban ice cream there will be less violent crime.

ETN is the real deal.  He was a great pick up.  

CMC is the real deal too.  He was worth the trade.

Saquan Barkley was the real deal.  The Giants devalued him, and look at them now. 

There's a reason that our defense focuses on stopping the running game.  But don't tell that to the mods...  Shhh...  A good RB isn't a valued position, just stop selling ice cream...

Maybe if you take a Statistics class you'll learn about correlation and causation. You clearly don't understand the concept.

LOL.  I bet you're the type of guy that poo poo's people with an actual education...  Statistics and the concept of how variables interact within a scientific study are 2 separate concepts.  I know because I had to take Statistics 250 twice because I thought it was an easy course and failed it the first time.  And I know about scientific study because I graduated with 36 credits in that discipline.  But I bet you felt really smart when you said what you did.  Good for you.  I tried to break down how some observations may appear to be related, but actually are not.  And what was your reply?  

Well your reply was that I don't understand the concept that I just explained to you.  Touche'.  Ya got me.

I'm happy for you. I'm sure you think that University education is a terrible thing to have.  I'm glad I have it.  And I'm happy for you for not having it.  You know you're better than me.  And I'm happy for you for thinking that way.  I'm sad that you close off so much from yourself.  But, if that makes you happy.

Then I'm happy for you.

---

Here's my favorite kissing scene from a movie...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDg0P2ALzm8


Who's scruffy lookin'????

---