KL2

Yeah but if you’re just using them for depth, which is what I was saying sign a ring chase to be corner 5 instead of a cheap 6th round pick, it doesn’t matter as much. They wouldn’t be playing early and wouldn’t get injured quickly they would be the fill in when that can 2 does get hurt instead of relying on an untested guy. But we don’t have or add those guy instead we rely on the vildor of the world.

That seems to be the thing they need to figure out. Do we have more than others? If so why? Is it something that can be fixed is it dumb luck? Part of me would like them to sign a few more veterans who are ring hunting. They might not be the most perfect scheme fit but they can play at a nfl level and can often plug in better than a 6th round guy.

What was I wrong about? That I don’t think someone should be evaluated on a career or talent because they once appeared in a championship? Sorry don’t think Robert Horry is better than Charles Barkley either. its fine you can be angry with me, I don’t care lash out. I and other questioned if this was a playoff team weeks ago, you assured us then posted that quote. Clearly I was right on that one. So got at least one right. but as I said lash out if you need someone to angry at, it’s just a message board and I don’t care nearly enough to be bothered by it. go back to telling everyone how great Goff is and how great this team is when most reasonable people can see there are warts on both that need to be fixed.

And Goff still has taken us to fewer Super Bowl than grossman. But hey hang your hat on that he is great because he went to one with another team.

“You get a lot wrong so it is just you.”

Rip 2025

Its all so ESPN has time to talk about the previous pick and the next pick, while allowing teams a little bit of time to make a trade and add excitment. All for a bit of sizzle to a honestly boring on its face event.

It almost always is unless you have oodles of money.

Yes the stats say it is. Because while yes picking fift hmight mean half with less than a 0 war, but that means half are better. It also means at pick six, seven, eight, 14 that rate goes up even higher. So its 51 percent (just pulling out of my tail for discussion) at pick six that fail, in the aggregate form. The stats say pick as high as possible because that is your best chance to get that team controlled superstar. And the best chance is to pick as high as possible. If you get that superstar its improve your odd of winning in year 5 and 10 and not still be stuck in the mud. And other studies on attendance have show there is really only significant different between massive winning and massive losing. Losing 89 instead of say 96, does almost nothing to improve attendance. The only real attendance swings happen if a team goes from signficant winning to losing in a year or two or visa versa. So its not really losing revenue or interest to say lets lose 106 instead of 99, 91, or 85. But again its just in theory no team or player is actively gonna go try to lose. For me its just an argument of in a lost year I'd rather have hte best odds to get better in the future than win an extra game or two and miss out on that superstar for just some instant gratification that isn't even that cause its still a bad team.

Cause the general overall ideas is bared out by stats. The higher you pick, the more likely you are to find a player that puts up a better career. "First round draftees had greater average career WAR compared to Rounds 2 to 20.Collectively, the first five picks had greater WAR versus picks grouped 16 through 30." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358010336_Major_League_Draft_WARs_An_Analysis_of_Wins_Above_Replacement_in_Player_Selection Of course there is wide variance and there is no fool proof strategey. Some top picks in baseball bust, there are late round gems, just like any other sport. But the best way to find, afford and control top tier baseball is through the draft and the best chance to get that kind of guy is still by picking as high as possible.

Yes rebuilding is a necessary part. Nobody has been good for 100 years

BAU for TV and sports journalism now. And there will be no correction or loss of creditability when its wrong.

Random LA sports anchor with no history of breaking news trying to gain twitter clout

If you take an average/good piece off the team you aren’t doing anything to improve value, you’re just shuffling chairs. It’s why prospects are traded for today value. if you move tork for “value” let’s say a No.3 pitcher, you’ve weakened the lineup to make room for an unproven guy. You just shifted the hole in the dam. Now if you meove a Keith or other players you keep the lineup as is but made that other area stronger. the only way your idea works is if you think Keith is gonna produce a 2.2 war (what tork did, 5th best on team) soon. So far he’s done little to show that. Your whole idea is based on the idea Keith needs somewhere “to learn and grow.” That concept works if your building we are already a playoff team. Let’s add to what we have an upgrade not just shift holes.

Yeah my comment was more getting at Tork is a top half first basemen in the league and we’re trading him to make room for a guy we know little about could be better could be worse in time. i get people have totally soured on tork, but he’s not as bad as many portray and not sure we should be moving any player for a downgrade.

is keith better than Tork?

right....

And it’s not just the wr vacuum. It’s also could the body at corner/de of whatever had a bigger impact CT

Yeah they need a kind of reset year…and Brad needs to realize in the nfl you can’t just rely on internal improvment

7-19 on thanksgiving this century. Campbell 1-4

I guess it’s weird to say a team is terrible and count it as a win when you lose to them. That’s just me though.

Didn’t we lose to the Vikings… at home?

Oh I know that…others have assured us they are

We still for sure a playoff team?

I give him 5 plays