-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
Well, my Raimann opinion is the exact same opinion as my Polian/Mathis opinion and NE/Brady opinion that I've carried for about 15 years. But seems to get lifted into an argument when luck is attributed to Ballard. Conceptually, no GM is any better at finding "late round gems" than any other. Looking at how they passed on a player several times just like every other GM did, they probably just get lucky. And that's basically what Ballard said...at least in this case when a talented player was still on the board (not exactly got passed over several times) -
-
Put it this way, your first post in this thread reminded me of your Raimann argument, and I figured it would come up eventually. Regarding the reaction to Ballard if AD is a good player, meh. I don't think the main implication has been that Ballard played the game so well that he knew exactly what would happen before everyone else, and he got what he wanted. I think the argument is that whether a GM stays and picks a guy, or trades back and picks a guy, if the guy becomes a good player, it's a credit to the GM. Maybe you've interpreted that argument differently, but I think what you've said above is a misrepresentation.
-
LOL. Its not shocking at all if you bothered to understand anything about what my consistent message has been about capital being devoted to positional value...instead of Gs, ILBs, RBs, and goal keeper FSs. When and if it would ever happen, I'd be happy. I figured it would happen at some point. Bust is a term used to describe a 1st round pick that went bad, and GMs should know enough about 1st round picks to not pick a bust. That's my standard, and opinion. QBs are an unusual pick, because so much "hope" and consequence is attached to the pick, so busts are going to happen with QBs. GMs should never whiff on a position player in the 1st round, IMO. What were talking about here are guys that might play better than anyone figured...which we know because 31 GMs passed on lower round guys multiple times. The evaluation processes that all teams use....and professional pundits as well....fail to capture that lower round prospect. So when the standardized process fails to recognize proper value, a team being rewarded with great value can be described as having good luck.
-
By Yoshinator · Posted
It was with McAfee, I did see that interview. I responded to this post with the following response when @RollerColt said something about it. Just in case you missed this response.
-
-
Members
-
.jpg.03c76055d967f51b813e290416ac9bfa.thumb.jpg.b1d64d49e1863163f4eefe42ad172348.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now