I think the only TRUE way to measure how good Snead is or isn't is to compile all of the picks made by all 32 GMs over a 5-year span and then compare the results. The criteria for a "hit" or a "miss" has to be applied the same to every single pick to be fair. I'm not going to do this analysis as I don't have that kind of time but it would be interesting.
As I understand your argument, you actually want two evaluations to be made: 1) each GM's 5 year success / fail rate, and 2) a comparison of Snead's S/F rate to the others. I think that would be a great evaluation. Like you, I don't have the time, or even the football knowledge to undertake that.
My position is that I want a guy, or actually a system, that can pick winners consistently. Maybe the effort by all 31 other teams is mediocre, so Snead might stand out in a mediocre crowd. That wouldn't cut it in my world.
You're right in that my analogies are simplistic. There are so many factors that determine a young football's players success or failure. Snead himself cannot bear the entire weight of criticism, and he cannot claim the entire trophy of success. I'm just trying to point out that normally, we would not settle for "average" ability. Why then should we accept it from a billion dollar sports team?
(But hey, let's face it, today, Snead's got to be feeling pretty good about himself with the accolades awarded to Gurley and Donald. If I were in his shoes I would be crowing about it.).
I really see opportunity for improvement within the Ram's org for drafting. Right now, we have a 50% S/F rate it seems. This isn't voodoo, nor is it rocket science. Somewhere, somehow, a mediocre standard has been accepted. I think we could do better.
