My last memory of Leon Hall was him getting torched play after play by USC in the Rose Bowl. I know it was only one game, but that was enough for me to understand the Texans passing on him. You pick for need, but you don't ignore talent in the process.
The only thing I can think of, around that time, is American Splendor. I got frustrated so I googled part of the quote and it was partially said in The Incredibles. I have never seen that movie. If that's it, I would have never gotten it!
Bingo. CG animation me likey. Has *nothing* to do with Clutch City, the Rockets, or Houston sports--my bad.
i heard a soundbyte by Okoye just now on sports radio 610. actually, i just missed as he put in a curse word. anyone know exactly what was said?
LOL, that's like saying "I'll rate this restaurant before I eat there, based on what I think might be good!" It's the only fair way! Grading a draft beforehand has to have a baseline on which to grade it. And your baseline in these silly "grades" is a "conventional wisdom", which is essentially the assembled rantings of talking heads like Mel Kiper who have never scouted an NFL game in a professional capacity in their entire life.
"LOL", no it's not. Not even close. Thanks, but that's not my baseline. Your wit sounds impressive, but you've said nothing of substance here.
Yes it is - you are rating something ex ante, when we have the ability to rate it ex post. I see little value in rating things ex ante as they appear to be based off guesswork in this instance, and not even according to any formula, but according to intuition and whim. (e.g. Hey I think the Lobster here will be good, since my friend liked it/since it's right by the ocean/since there's a picture of a lobster on a sign! I'm going to give this restaurant 5 stars!) (Baltmore Ravens are the runaway winners of the draft in 2003 for drafting Kyle Boller! What a steal! A+ grade) Ex post is based off actual results. (Oh no, the lobster tasted like sh-t! I give the restaurant zero stars! ) (Boller stinks - waste of what they traded to get him. All the Ravens got in 2003 was Terrell Suggs and some marginal starter/backups) Which one is more valuable from a logical standpoint as far as evaluating the restaurant/draft? Obviously ex post. If not, then Carroll Dawson is collecting his 2006 NBA GM of the year award for grabbing Stromile Swift and Derek Anderson on the cheap. Not really sure why I had to explain this to you but I did - now it's your turn to try to distinguish it, but I don't think you credibly can. Oh? WHat is your baseline - if not received wisdom from the sporting press (which is very unreliable in this area - in fact even NFL team forecasting is unrelaible. If they could pick the best players then all top 10 picks would be all pros every single year and the "sleeper" pick would not exist). Are you saying that you've conducted your own impregnable in depth analysis which employs a degree of precision with regard to forecasting future performance that is unheard of in our era? Do tell.
I understand your premise, but outside of the "anything can happen" factor such as injuries, these personnel evaluators are paid to make predictions on future performances. that's how they are graded as far their drafts and that's how they are graded in relation to their peers. you're right, everyone has the same information, its just like the stock market, everyone has the same information. but some people make better predictions on that same information. its just like when people defend rudy t for trading for griffin because alot of pundits had him as the best player in that draft. I liked the griffin trade, alot of people did, but rudy gets paid to make those decisions, he was ultimately judged on how griffin panned out, not how he was perceived before he was drafted.
Thanks for using the Latin terminology; I quite understand it in both languages. The problem is that while there is an ex ante and an ex post in each scenario, that is pretty much the only thing they have in common, and as such it is a logical non sequitur. Now it's your turn to try to understand that, but I don't think you credibly can. Sorry, just wanted to return your ad hominem--and I actually do think you know what I meant, whether or not you agree. I didn't intend to sway your opinion, only to express mine. If you'd like to discuss the differences, let's agree to leave the intelligence-questioning innuendo out. The organizations have much, much more than "intuition and whim" available to them. They are both of value. At draft time, one can look at the method employed by some organizations and immediately raise some questions. Other organizations put themselves in a position to succeed. What if Winston never recovers from his broken leg? Was that a "bad" draft decision? The problem with employing ex post evalution exclusively is the burden of prediction of too many variables which are beyond the control of everyone involved, injuries being only one such example. The merit of the decision can be weighed based upon the information organizations have available to them at the time, in my opinion. See, here is a great example. We were all jumping up and down calling CD a genius that offseason. We were pumped for the year to begin. Halfway through the season, CD is an idiot, not a genius. Cato gets a contract; CD's an idiot. Cato, Francis and Mobley get moved for T-Mac; CD's a genius. Back-and-forth, back-and-forth, the opinion of the fan base runs the extreme gamut based solely upon amateur ex post evaluations. I think that's pretty freaking stupid, personally. CD's career has had some great drafts/acquisitions and some not so great ones. How would you rate the sum total of his work? You *didn't*, but thanks anyway for the condescending ad hominem. It's amazing to me how a typical fan immediately assumes that someone who disagrees with his viewpoint lacks intelligence. So, based on ex post analysis, NFL teams draft unreliably? Is it really that simple? It's solely the fault of the executives and coaches making the decisions? Could you do better? Baseline: observe the sum total of a team's work, and also the needs of a team's roster at the time of the draft. Frankly, there's not enough history on Smith and Kubiak for me to draw a conclusion. Yes. I'm Mel Kiper in disguise.
Well said--I agree with ultimately holding someone accountable for the result of his decisions. But, for example, if a GM presides over 7 NFL drafts, with like 25 first-day picks during his tenure, and of those 25 first-day picks 12 are starters somewhere, 10 are backups or depth players somewhere, and 3 are busts, I'd bet that on the day each of those busts was drafted, sound logic and good information were employed. They don't all pan out, even when the methods are all good. It's just not that simple. Now, someone feel free to hammer away at the numbers I just used--I have no idea how many first-day picks an organization typically has or what are the percentages of picks that actually do well, and I bet my numbers are quite on the high end. But, the point still stands. I personally hated the Griffin trade, but I see your point. The only thing is, the Griffin trade sucked on its own merit after the fact. What about the rest of Rudy's work? Should he be judged only on the Griffin trade?
So I take this as a NO? You asked for an explanation,I gave you one. Be careful what you wish for, lesson learned. Maybe so - but so what? you don't have their independent judgments (eihter intution based or not) at your disposal when assinging grades - and even so history proves their intuition is wrong more often than not (or else the rookie of hte year would be the number 1 pick ... always) Succeed - according to who? Oh yes, preconceptions that are not worth much, right? Yes....wouldn't you agree? Just because you gamble and lose- doesn't make losing any less bad. When you're a loser, you're a loser. Look, nobody said it was easy..... I think it's stupid too - but stupid to grade ex ante, for the reasons you just stated.
No, I didn't. Not once did I request an explanation from you. I didn't "wish for" anything. "Lesson learned?" OK, you're not interested in discussing this, only in more sanctimonious condescension. So, I'll refrain from commenting line-by-line on the rest of your post, other than to say it is for the most part mindless drivel.
Sorry, I neglected to adhere to the highly conciliatory discourse you employed a few posts up. Lesson learned. Thanks for taking on the substance.
