YikesVikes wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:47 pm
VikingLord wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 11, 2021 2:43 pm
I don't have stats to back this up, but you don't put the Vikings recent 1st round picks into context.
My strong suspicion is that most teams have similar outcomes as the Vikings have with their first round picks. They will be able to point to some successful picks, average picks, and outright busts in the 1st round over the same time period. Some will have more hits and some more misses and maybe some will produce largely average outcomes, but without that context and based on what you've posted one would conclude that Spielman must be terrible.
Spielman isn't that bad. He's probably about average overall in terms of his drafts and the players he's acquired. The Vikings have notable talent on both sides of the football, whether that talent was acquired in the 1st round or not.
Hard to do so when we have more 1st rounders than anyone. However, I don't think most teams have missed on 4 out of 7 1st rounders... AND gave one away for Sam Bradford.... And just gave a 2nd away for a 6 game rental.
You ever seen those optical illusions where they show you two lines and ask you which one is longer?
The answer appears obvious because without measurement your brain is tricked by what it perceives as depth perception caused by surrounding colors to believe one line is in fact longer than the other.
The effect is achieved because without objective measurement and with simple existing biases we see what we expect is true instead of what is actually true.
And in this case, as well as in the coaching discussions and, to a lesser extent the discussions about Kirk Cousins, this is the sort of thing that happens on this message board all the time. Heck, even I'm probably guilty of it at times.
There is a real temptation to just look at something and jump to conclusions about what caused it and what therefore should be done to fix it. But if you just leap to a conclusion and think you know what caused a result and you proceed to fix the situation based on faulty or incomplete understanding, there is a very good chance that the situation won't improve and an equal chance (if not more, depending on how far from the actual mark you are), it will get worse.
The performance of a given GM, head coach, or player, has to be taken in context with their peers to be fairly assessed.
And when it comes to 1st round draft choices, all we're really talking about is improved odds at hitting on more productive players. That's it. The odds are higher because those players have displayed something, be in in their college careers, during the Combine, pro workouts, interviews, etc, that indicates they are more likely to be successful as pros. Throw in human biases to that mix (basically, teams falling in love with particular players based on particular things like a fast 40 time at the Combine) or "feeling" a particular need at a position outweighs acquiring the best talent available regardless of position, and the 1st round of any given draft is still more likely to produce "busts" and average players than great players. It's just slightly less likely to produce less successful players than those found in later rounds, and this is true regardless of the team doing the picking and regardless of the particular talent coming out in a given draft.
It really is a box of chocolates. If some teams do better managing this risk and those unknowns than others, they probably are better at putting aside those biases and focusing on the talent available to them, then leveraging that assessment in trades or player development to get the most out of the talent they drafted.
I think if there were a fair, objective assessment of Spielman and Zimmer in terms of players they've drafted, they'd end up about average to slightly above average overall, especially when all rounds of the draft are included. If their drafted players were broken down by position groups, then they might be below average in some areas (like OL), while they come out above average in others (WR and DL).
To bring this back to the analogy, it might "feel" like they're shorter than their peers, but a measurement would indicate otherwise.