I think the heart of the issue is that most people have flipped the way learning and opinion making is supposed to work. Instead of getting info first and then forming an opinion, more and more people form an opinion based upon emotion and then look for info to back it up. We see this all the time in politics, where its application is probably most obvious.
Shoot first, ask later.
1.) Analyzing what's happened/happening/going to happen is what the place is all about, so this sort of thing isn't going away.
2.) The team screwing up the draft for several years in a row is a large part of the reason the defense has been hot garbage in recent seasons, and it's probably a huge part of the reason the team hasn't been able to add more Lombardis to the trophy case. I think it's more than just acceptable to point out the problems. I think it's important that it be done.
I agree that there was a poor period of drafting which affected the team, but the 2010 draft wasn't part of that period. It may have been one of our best drafts ever.
And with any of these discussions, I'd love to actually see more than just "this guy wasn't the best pick." Is there a common theme between them? Is there perhaps something we're emphasizing that we shouldn't, or perhaps overlooking something? It'd be nice to have some actual insights to it rather than "this guy wasn't the best pick at that spot." I think we all agree that Cunningham wasn't. But neither was Dunlap.
It's also not accurate to project the same results on any team. What one player does in one system doesn't mean they will duplicate it in another. Dunlap might have done more here than Cunningham, but maybe not. There's the argument about systems, but don't forget the scouting report on the guy was that he was inconsistent and he took a lot of plays off. If we would have drafted him, he may not have become what he's become. He could have easily been buried on the bench due to his poor work habits. Or maybe he would have learned how to work and become even better than he is. I don't know. But I don't think it's fair to act as if he was drafted by the Pats, he would have produced the same results.
No process involving the draft will be perfect though, and looking at isolated examples doesn't really help. For every guy like Dunlap who looks lazy on tape and eventually works out, there are a dozen others who never amount to anything. To point at the one success and ignore all the other failures is ridiculous.
Basically, the draft is a bit of a gamble, only with fans expecting the FO to win 100% of the time. It's like poker, where you can win a lot more hands than your opponent by being smart and using good strategies, but nobody wins 100% of the time. All you can do is make sure you are making good decisions along the way. I understand fans obsess over outcome, but we need to look at the actual processes involved. If we continue to make good decisions, then we lessen the odds of luck intervening, but luck still plays a huge part.
