Quote
Ramsdude
Quote
jemach
To what end?
The guy at #23 is likely different for each team.
This post has been made during the discussion of losing a #1 pick for a possible 1 year rental.
So making the conclusion that the post is to say the #23 pick hasn't been great is reasonable. But in reality, as ZN points out, it only makes sense in context to who was available at #23...taking into consideration the rank of such available prospects.
Disagree. It makes perfect sense. There were plenty of good players after pick 23 on that list. The point is "it's a crapshoot", a "gamble" therefore a "proven" player like Cooks instead of that pick is a no brainer. Cooks is a s close to a "sure thing" as you can get. A player drafted is a "gamble". It's that simple. They only way someone would disagree with that is if they didn't like the trade and wanted Sammy and the pick instead.
I think everyone gets the difference between a proven player and the draft pick. Odds favor the proven veteran.
To me saying that by listing mediocre 23rd picks doesn;t say that. It's just pure chance that 23 in the last decade hasn't been great.
So that hides the real issue IMO.
Bear with me. I will get there through "steps."
Is it possible to get a good player at 23? Of course it is. The mere accident of chance that a decade didn't can't erase that. There are good players at 23 or after. So you CAN get one.
So what?
Well "so what" this: if you want to defend the trade (like I do) you have to be able to say that the trade is worth it EVEN IF YOU COULD GET A GOOD PLAYER WITH THAT FIRST ROUND PICK (because of course they exist and always have and always will).
It's a weak defense to say "23 bad, Cooks better." It's just a sheer accident of chance that 23 has been pretty mediocre, so yeah they COULD HAVE GOTTEN SOMEONE, sure, but the odds are getting the vet instead is probably better.
So to me, itt's a stronger defense to say "yeah they could have gotten someone, someone good too, but all things considered, odds favor taking the vet over the pick that low in the draft." That's much more qualified. It's not as comforting in its absolute dismissal of picking 23rd (which is false anyway...you can pick good players there, we know that). It's much more realistic. It's far less cut n dried. When we put it that way we're being realists.
What you don't want to say is "look I proved picking 23rd will never yield a good result" because that's simply not true. Someone like the Rams COULD make better choices than other teams did, because, after all, there are always other options at 23...it's not like the NFL says "you must take the 23rd ranked player no matter what" because there's no such thing. Plus, even if the past history hasn't worked, that puts no constraints on the present. For all we know we're about to see a long glorious line of great 23rd picks for the next decade. AND IF WE DO, I can still defend the Cooks trade anyway. I will still be saying yeah you can get a player at 23, but I like the odds better of using that pick to trade for a young vet who is a fit.
