Quote
Coy Bacon
My criteria is not other team's drafts successes or failures, its is our own. All of us agree we've had some good, and some bad. I think overall, slightly more bad than good, i.e. below average.
I think comparing Snead's performance against other team's performances is a bad metric.
Take a step back. I'm fairly intelligent, am very critical, and I think I grade harder than most. If the Rams hire me to do their draft picks, I know I could do as well as Snead. I think many guys on this board could do better. I mean that sincerely. We fans are very passionate at times. There is plenty of info out there about college players. This isn't semi-conductor physics. I would rather the Rams hire Alyo full time to do their draft picks than Snead. "Below average" is not a high bar and I'd bet Alyo, and others, would easily out perform Snead.
Making a judgment without a comparison of some type doesn't make any sense for several reasons.
One, even if we were to give a grade in a vacuum - let's say a C or C- as you and Jemech suggest - it's still possible that the entire class is getting C's too and Snead has the highest C in the class. In such a case, he's doing well even with a C. We'd need to show that his peers are getting A's and B's to establish that he's just average or below.
Two, you actually are making a comparison when you say that you or Alyo could do better. You're using that (speculative) info and saying that Snead falls short in comparison to what an amateur can do. If comparing him to passionate amateurs to argue against his competency makes sense, then comparing him to his professional peers to assess his competency makes even more sense.
Three, it's important to have some type of objective benchmark so as not to set unrealistic expectations. You state that Snead has had good picks and bad ones but slightly more bad than good and suggest that that is a problem. The implication here is that 50% or more of his picks should pan out; it appears that is your expectation. However, when you factor in the extremely low success percentages from the 4th through 7th rounds, that's not a reasonable expectation. It's a fact that league wide, 50% of 2nd round picks are busts. Having that knowledge as a benchmark, should help inform what reasonable expectations are.
It seems pretty clear to me that there really can't be a judgment of his performance without a some type of comparison or clear benchmark. My guess is, if you were owner who was considering hiring or firing him, you would have these types of numbers in hand to help inform your decision.
Beyond our differences on the need for a comparison / benchmark, I also disagree that you or any other passionate fan could do a better job. With all due respect of course...
It's very easy to just state you could do better but that's speculative at best. I've been on this board a long time and I've never seen anyone with an established, documented track record that in actuality rivals paid professionals. Without that info I'm not buying that they could.
You overstate how easy the job is. If it was so easy, that 50% bust rate on 2nd round picks that I cited above wouldn't exist. Having such a high bust rate on such high premium picks shows that drafting is not an exact science; it's an art with a high degree of difficulty to get right.
Sure being good at semi-conductor physics requires high intelligence but at least it's based on math. I.e. a science. Drafting involves not just assessing talent but making judgments on work ethic, passion, love for football, leadership capacity, football IQ, and a host of other intangibles. That's why I say it's half art. This aspect of drafting, IMO, is the reason for the high bust rate in every round but the 1st round.
Anyway, FWIW, I'm not trying to convince you that Snead is good. I'm just saying that we need to have some type of benchmark to know one way or another.
