OT: Trade up! Trade up! Trade up!

[convertedpatsfan]

Either you believe that the drafting is a 100% crap shoot and 100% statistically definable, or you concede that there is no iron clad law of averages with regards to draft outcome. That's a simple reality. Either some GMs/teams are better at picking player than others, or it's purely a numbers game that evens out over time. You, however, are trying to have it both ways.

And your attempt to differentiate the number of times one guy has moved up from the number of times the other has is just a weak, biased attempt to prop up the guy at the expense of the other.

I don't quite agree with this. I don't think it's all one way or another, but a blend. You can be smarter about it, but part of being smarter is accepting you need to balance your risk.

Think of it like stocks. Some guys think they have a hot stock tip, and they're going to make a killing. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes they have good info, sometimes they don't. In a one-off basis, some guys can get hot in small samples. But balanced portfolios over the long run tend to win out consistently.

There's a lot of irrationality in the stock market, and nobody can be 100% certain of anything, but there are ways to take good risks and there are ways to take bad risks. I see the draft market as a very similar place, and you can be smarter about it than others, but part of that intelligence is knowing there's no sure thing, and balancing risks.

I think Loomis consistently bets he knows better, while BB measures his risks. I don't quite understand what the misunderstanding or disagreement is.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think Loomis consistently bets he knows better, while BB measures his risks. I don't quite understand what the misunderstanding or disagreement is.

When you try differentiating trade ups, you should understand the obvious disagreement to follow.

And, again, you either believe that the draft is just a matter of statistics and a crap shoot, or you believe that a one GM can pick better than another. It can't be both.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

When you try differentiating trade ups, you should understand the obvious disagreement to follow.

And, again, you either believe that the draft is just a matter of statistics and a crap shoot, or you believe that a one GM can pick better than another. It can't be both.

I think your first statement is something we'll have to agree to disagree on. I don't think either of us will sway the other.

But I really don't understand that last line. Why can't it be both? You're thinking in extremes.

In any market relying on predicting the future, there are lots of other elements that decide the success or failure of decisions. That does NOT mean it's a crap shoot or totally random. It recognizes and accepts that evaluation is only part of the equation. Player development, coaching, injuries, and luck also play a part. It accepts that you can make a good decision but not have it work out. It accepts that you can make a bad decision but it does work out. It just says that good evaluation will not be the only factor involved, and some teams hedge those bets while others don't.

Not every GM is treating their draft capital the same way. Every team gets 7 draft picks. Some teams are more aggressive in giving up picks. Other teams find ways to get more picks and more value out of those picks. So how they use those picks varies on strategy, and some GMs have better strategies for developing more draft capital than others.

So I do believe some GMs are better evaluators than others, but I also think they game the system better to hedge their evaluations. I don't think this is a controversial view, certainly not one worth going back and forth on multiple times. It happens every day in financial markets. I don't see why it's so hard to believe it would happen in the NFL draft, especially with a GM who has an Economics degree.