While i do agree that the talent pool is smaller, this team has left a lot of easy meat on the bone when drafting over the GMs referenced.
Looking just at the Rivera era... There some extremely glaring misses that just made sense.
2021 - Simply 2 changes in this draft and the arc of this franchise is largely effected.
Taking Jamin Davis instead of Christian Darrisaw who was available.
Taking Dyami Brown in 3rd round over Nico Collins
Drafting a Long Snapper in 6th round who isn't in league anymore (and i defended this move at times because a ST stalwart in the 6th round is usually a win, but always also said "if you're gonna do that, you better be right"... and he wasn't right)
2022 - You mentioned the drafting of Dotson who most had a 2nd round grade on which further supports the thought that where you pick means squat if your decision making and evaluation is flawed.
Jahan Dotson in the 1st round with Quay Walker / Devin Lloyd / George Karlaftis / Trent McDuffie were all on the board. Even bigger than that, they traded back with Kyle Hamilton was on board. This is not all hindsight either, these were all names that were talked about on THIS message board, as well as our podcast leading up to that draft...
Taking Phil Mathis when George Pickens / Alec Pierce / Trey McBride were all on the board... again, all players that were clear hits even at the time if we would have pulled the trigger.
2023 - Drafting Emmanuel Forbes when Christian Gonzalez / Jack Campbell / Jaxon Smith-Njigba were there
At some point the higher draft pick isn't the priority. There's talent up and down the draft board. Hits aren't hits the day they are drafted. Players that can hit one place, may not be able to hit elsewhere. The fate is not pre-determined like some fore-gone conclusion with a script of good or bad. There are 1000000 factors that change the outcome of a player being able to make it at the NFL level.
This is why I feel like yes, having a 'bigger' pool to pick from is a benefit, but I also think the 'hit' % on draft picks is kind of a hollow stat. It's not the same draft class every year, so to say a pick in the 7th round hits at 5% is not really accurate. Yes, 5% of the players drafted in the 7th round have been 'hits' but year to year, it's not the same players over and over, so the dynamic is largely different. It illustrates a rarity, but that's not because they're taken in the 7th round... it's because the big board played out and the didn't get chosen. Drafting a player in the 5th round doesn't give them a better chance at being a hit if they're a 7th round talent, so I can't look at those percentages with any real belief because it's so much more about the player, and situation, than it is about their draft position. There's a reason it appears that certain GMs / Teams seem to always find the 'gems.' Not every GM is good at evaluating talent, so their 'misses' might be because they're just grasping. Other GM's / Scouts are better at their jobs, so they likely have a higher hit rate, even later in the draft, which further means the % of quality player is skewed because the evaluator is the determining factor.
Digesting this into some macro points and correct me if I am misreading you.
A. Rivera's bad drafting goes beyond his one trade down. I agree.
B. At different points in the draft there are better possibilities than who Rivera took. Agree, too. I was actually on ES made fun of for overreacting when they skipped on Gonzalez for Forbes. Darrisaw is the player I wanted instead of Davis, etc.
C. The more players you can pick, the more players you land. I actually agree with this and big time so.
D. Your conclusion is that A and B and C is somewhat proof that it really doesn't matter where you pick, it matters who you pick and there is always a player every round that's a hit. So why not us being the FO landing that hit round by round. And adding all those lottery picks improve the odds of hits.
So I agree with the premise of these points. Mind you, I've said multiple times I'd be good with a trade down if it includes a 2027 first rounder. But why wouldn't I for a 2nd rounder. Why?
A. It's simple i do think in many drafts and on first blush this one too, top half of the first round is easier to find top tier talent. Go through the 2022 draft. I like that one because you have three years for it to play out. You got some elite players going before Washington picked. Hutchinson. Gardner. Hamilton. Garrett Wilson. And some great ones like Walker, Drake London, Olave. Jordan Davis is good. Go through our pick 16 through 32, some nice ones you mention Lloyd, he's been good, actually started off meh, but had a good season this year but not an elite player. Karlaftis is a nice player, not a barn burner, and these are the BEST players in that 2nd half of that draft. Quay Walker is decent, nothing great. Some good players, some meh, some busts. You didn't find elite. I am not saying you can't find elite but its harder.
B. If you judge every draft in every round by the best picks in each round -- with the idea of why can't it be our team at every turn? It's just not realistic. Yeah there is going to be a great player picked in EVERY round. But name that GM who consistently is the one on the right side of all of that?
C. this is my larger point I don't disagree that we will get more good to solid players if we trade down. Heck I am the dude here who says that Peters didn't bomb the 2024 draft. If you compare his picks with the likelihood of success -- I gather you reject that premise of percentages but plenty use that metric I am not on an island with the success ratio per round, its commonly used. Peters did fine. 50% of 2nd rounders fail. You could reject that idea but just think about all the 2nd rounders we've had or take any random team and go through like 10 years of their picks. Sinnot and Sainristill contribute. Newton less so. McCaffrey for a late 3rd rounder is a good pick. Coleman good pick. MaGee for a 5th rounder -- good pick. Jean-Bapitise for a 7th rounder is a good pick.
If the idea is lets load up this roster with more McCaffreys, Magees, Sainristil's and we can do so better by trading down. I 100% agree if that's the goal. But what's working against this thought for me is something Chris Cooley once said, the power of an elite player goes beyond the actual player. It has a ripple effect on the rest of the team. Playing next to an elite player often makes the other players better. Teams have to game plan for that dude and it takes focus off of someone else and helps that player unleash. The elite player often makes the big play in the big moment. It increases the confidence of other players to have that dude, etc.
Myles Garrett is obviously lol an extreme example of elite but yesterday the joke was the Steelers were so focused on stopping him they changed their game plan for the worse and it contributed to a loss. We know this process because just about every team we play against has a guy like that and we talk about said player the week leading to a game what are we going to do to stop so and so.
Jayden was asked about the Ravens once and he goes wow they were the most confusing defense he's ever faced with Kyle Hamilton lining up everywhere. How do we stop Barkley and Jalen Carter. On and on and on. Do you think teams how the hell are we going to stop Frankie Luvu?
I want a player like that more so than adding good players. If Peters thinks that player doesn't exist in the top 10 or indeed does exists but still does if they trade down to 13 or whatever, I am on board with a trade down.
But the idea of me just endorsing the idea of its always better to trade down and to say that Peters, Shanny, Cerrato, Rivera, McCloughan all failed royally doing the same is because they were incompetent, I am not in agreement. And lol, if I play along with that if Peters was fooled once, why couldn't he be fooled again? And if its that simple why isn't everyone trading down? Why do some teams even do the opposite and trade up? Howie Roseman for years now does a bit of everything but seems to like to trade up in the first for dudes he covets.
 }})
