Tall Midget wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Nas wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Nas wrote:
Louis Riddick is campaigning hard for the job. Sometimes when you campaign, you get elected. I would pass on him. The Morocco guy is intriguing. Unlike Pace, he can point to 4 stops where the team had success drafting players while he was working there.
It's sad that you've unwittingly allowed the McCaskey family to lower your standards so much that you'd be satisfied with the Colts' "Guy Who Runs the PowerPoint During Draft Prep" instead of, say, an accomplished executive with a demonstrated history of building teams with sustained success.
Since when did Chicago become the place to go if you're on the periphery of some good team whose most likely good because of someone you may have run into during a staff meeting?
I think that you are viewing this wrong my friend. Working in 4 or 5 scouting departments/front offices that had success drafting players is unique. It gives him a perspective that most first time GM's don't have.
Every great executive started somewhere. Why can't the Bears get the young guy with fresh ideas that has paid his dues?
Fair enough, but still. This supposed "major market" city should command the best, not some first-timer.
I might be intrigued by candidates who've managed to succeed without a HOF/Pro Bowl-type QB. I am weary of guys living off the success of Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Mahomes, etc., though I get how that can be unreasonable since you have to surround those QBs with good players to capitalize on their greatness.
So you are saying that you prefer personnel guys who have failed to draft well at the most important position in football over those who have drafted well at that position?
Others have said this better than I can, but there is also an element of luck here, no? For example, Mahomes and Watson fall to KC and Houston respectively at #10 and #12. They get credit for the selection but there's some luck involved here in that the 9 and 11 teams before KC and Houston elected not to grab either one of them. I'm hesitant to credit KC 100% with grabbing Mahomes when, through no fault of thier own, they also benefitted from the 9 teams before them not selecting Mahomes when they had a chance to.
There's also the class as well. Let's just assume the class of 2021 (Fields, Wilson, Lawrence, Lance, and Jones) end up being stars, and the 2022 class ends up being bad, as projected. The Lions pick #2 in 2022, which is a bad class. Had they picked #2 just one year prior they would have had a chance at Fields, Jones, Wilson or Lance. It reminds me of the Bulls picking Tyrus Thomas #2 in 2006; KD would have been available that year had the NBA not raised the age limit just a year prior. That's why KD spent 2006 in college rather than entering the draft. In 2007, KD goes #2. Would the Bulls have had a chance at KD in 2006 if not for the age rule thing? Maybe, but there's some measure of bad luck here in that KD wasn't in the class the Bulls had the #2 pick for.
So, while I don't have a problem in saying there's some skills you need to identify QBs, and perhaps identify QBs you want to avoid in the draft, there's also some luck. Therefore, I can't say the sole problem with Denver, BLT (pre-Lamar), KC pre-Mahomes, etc., is that they are just bad at drafting QBs.