I agree with a lot of that. But anecdotal examples (like Trey Lance or Brock Purdy) is a dangerous path to go down. The reason 'analytics' is all the rage is because it represents the idea that if you follow statistical probability over the long haul, you will make more great decisions than bad. Hitting on a very low probability move, or missing on a high probability move are part of the equation and shouldn't drive your approach one way or the other.
Here's the other thing. I don't necessarily agree that bad decisions are made because bad teams have bad scouting - at least not when it comes to QB. It is very difficult to know if even the greatest college QB will be a great NFL QB. Look at Trevor Lawrence. He was supposed to be a 'generational talent'. Right now, it's not 100% certain he is going to be a successful starter. That doesn't mean it was a mistake to draft him.
If even the experts are often wrong about which QBs are going to be stars and which aren't, I think that argues that you swing more often, not less. Eventually you will hit.
I agree, I mean Generally. There are teams that seem to always find themselves picking in the top half of the draft... those teams also seem to be turning over their roster pretty frequently. I just think there are teams that evaluate, and identify talent better than others, and those teams pretty regularly don't pick in the top 10 unless they move up to get a guy.
There's about 15 different factors that go into whether or not a player hits.... Talent, Development, Fit, Scheme, Coaching, Right time right place, Investment, Confidence... a lot of these things are not static either. They can change, and be effected by other factors. The right guy can go at the wrong time, and the wrong guy in the right circumstance can me more successful than the first.
I still go back to my point. I'd rather not take a QB for the sake of taking one... but if we're on the clock at 2, and they believe one of the guys available is worth the pick, you absolutely have to take him.


