Rumor - Grier And McDaniel On The Hot Seat | Page 14 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Rumor - Grier And McDaniel On The Hot Seat

This is where there has to be push back. I wish forums were more mixed because Dolphins fans need to hear actual criticism.

Firstly, 9-8 is basically a .500 record and with a supposedly good QB and a Top-10 roster that ought to be about the absolute minimum imaginable, let alone an acceptable stat used in defense of this franchise.

For the love of God, the previous HC Brian Flores (who got fired mind you) achieved the same record with a less talented roster and with Tua missing 5.5 games with various injuries which is technically more time than he missed with concussions in McDaniel's first season (4.5).

The hallmark of the Flores teams lay in the fact they could only beat teams that had bad offenses and terrible QBs. Generally, Flores' defense suffocated those teams with aggressive defense and the Miami offense got away with doing very little. Recall the games against the various sub-par QBs: Gardner Minshew, Mac Jones, Cam Newton, Brandon Allen, Ian Book, Joe Flacco, Zach Wilson, Daniel Jones and Tyrod Taylor. We can probably include the rookie Justin Herbert in that list, too, since he was entirely ill-equipped to match Flores defense at the time. Heck, they even lost games to Jacoby Brissett and Carson Wentz.

Has the McDaniel era really been different? How many prolific teams have the Dolphins actually taken down? Sadly, it wasn't really the mailed-in effort of Vic Fangio either, surprisingly. The defense has been decent, even against the better QBs like Jalen Hurts and Pat Mahomes. They were good against Josh Allen in the final regular season game.

The problem was Mike McDaniel's offense failing to score. In a lot of cases, they couldn't even get first downs and posses the ball against good teams. And that's with this offense loaded with weaponry. In the "biggest win" this year it was Jason Sanders kicking 5 FGs and the defense forcing a fumble at the goal line that saved the day!

11 wins is fine, but again, it's a marginal improvement that only looks good if your expectation is .500 and you're not being critical.

Since the McDaniel era began, the team has historically struggled against most of the top teams in each division. They are 1-3 against Buffalo, 0-2 against KC, 1-1 against the LAC, 1-1 against Baltimore, 0-1 against Cincinnati, 0-1 against Tennessee, 0-1 against SF, 0-1 against GB, 0-1 against Philly, etc.

I'm sure we make excuses for each of those but at some point it's like, 'c'mon, what's wrong with us?'

Quite frankly, the losses have gotten uglier under McDaniel really. We've had more losses on big stages (which admittedly suggests the national media is at least paying attention). We had 2 big match-ups against Buffalo and lost them both. We had a Sunday Night game against the Chargers last year where we looked totally inept on offense. Tua was 3/17 at one point. We had a Sunday Night game in Philly we lost. We had widely-advertised match-ups against the Ravens and Chiefs. We lost both games. We had a Monday Night game against the Titans. We lost. We had a Play-off game and we lost it looking pretty lousy on offense.

So congrats, the team has found a way to draw attention but not to capitalize on it like the Lions, Packers and Texans did this season with big wins in the regular season and in the Playoffs, too!

The most impressive looking wins under McDaniel came last year but most of those teams were better this year (e.g. Baltimore, Detroit). We lost to Baltimore this year and probably would've lost to Detroit had we played them, IDK. We barely beat Dallas who didn't play all that well.

You have to be critical of the Dolphins or else you're just not being fair. Miami is a decent team but they failed to deliver after attracting a bunch of attention with splashy offseason moves and a media-friendly HC.

What you have is a team that reporters and analysts are obviously more interested in now compared with how things looked 2 years ago but that doesn't mean it's really a good team.
Spend any amount of time on the forum and you will find plenty of criticism…..no need to go look for it.

There is also a risk of wading into a conversation without understanding the topic, the poster I am responding to and I are discussing. Got halfway through your manifesto and realized it…..
 
Spend any amount of time on the forum and you will find plenty of criticism…..no need to go look for it.

There is also a risk of wading into a conversation without understanding the topic, the poster I am responding to and I are discussing. Got halfway through your manifesto and realized it…..

Sorry for the manifesto but it takes a lot of effort to appear as a good-faith poster while simultaneously trying to get people to question their beliefs in hopes of getting them to agree that 9-8 isn't actually very good.
 
By this metric alone, McD has been successful. 9 wins in 2022 and 11 wins in 2023. That seems like continuous progress to me, and certainly not clueless behavior.

You are definitely being too hard on him.

Nothing wrong with wanting more, but looking at what you stated was most important, he is doing a pretty good job for us.
I agree that he has a winning record. Those wins got them to the playoffs, but that means nothing if you can't beat the good teams and advance in the playoffs. It also doesn't help when your team chokes in every big-game must-win situation for the Division Crown or a top Seed.

Okay, I'm done with complaining about McDaniel... for now. Go Fins! (Time to start in on Grier and then maybe Tua.)
 
The hallmark of my short tenure as a fan since the mid 2000s is that this team is always supposedly "on the verge" of big success. It's the same story every single year. New coach. New player. New scheme. More depth. It's always something that's going to come to our rescue.

I cannot remember a time when this wasn't the narrative.

I made an off-the-cuff remark about 5 years ago joking that the Tank was really about lowering expectations so that .500 would be seen as improvement. I mean, hey, if you're a team stuck in mediocrity just try and make mediocrity look better, LOL.

And sadly, I think that's what we have. Tannehill got to 10-6 and it's just coincidence but when Flores does it it's a sign of improvement through rebuilding. Flores went 9-8 but when Mike McDaniel does it it's a sign of a rookie HC steering clear of a losing season.

Maybe the Dolphins are truly on the mend. Perhaps we're ascending and next year will be another 10-, 11- or 12-win season. That'd be great and it'd prove a lot.

OTOH, we might just be the most pathetic fanbase in existence, one that has convinced ourselves that having accomplished basically nothing, we're actually much more relevant now than 8- or 10-years ago.

The danger here is that if the latter is really true and we're so delusional that we can't even be charged with rightfully critiquing our own team how does any of this matter? If the future is just a bunch of YouTube channels by Dolphins fans singing the praises of whatever Miami's doing at that time how is that synthetic BS reality one we want to live in? If football is a lie which you tell yourself, why would you continue to watch it?

To me, I still need to see that the Dolphins aren't stuck in the middle with a kind of delusional cancer that will prevent them from ever making the right kinds of long-term moves that stabilize a franchise and make it relevant. I need to see the leadership demonstrate vision. Short-term signings, splashy moves aimed at selling marketability, an increased flow of hype videos and plugged-up holes filled with last-second fill-ins are not that. Those are all things that suggest the opposite of stability.

Speak for yourself, but the joke I made 5 years ago is one I feel may actually be more true than false. And sometimes that kind of "conspiracy" doesn't take active effort or intentional planning. Just keep that in mind. It just takes the right kind of fail-forward system where no one's ever really held accountable because it's not beneficial to those in power for that to be the case.
 
Last edited:
It's almost like groundhogs day in here, the same arguments used for Ireland are used for Grier.
Grier is the GM and has been for 9 seasons, he's worked with 3 coaches now.
At what point does he take ownership?
He wasn’t calling any shots, he was just doing the dirty Gm work for tannenbaum. Just like Ireland wasn’t calling any shots when parcells was here. Grier is judged from 2019 forward
 
He wasn’t calling any shots, he was just doing the dirty Gm work for tannenbaum. Just like Ireland wasn’t calling any shots when parcells was here. Grier is judged from 2019 forward

The truth is that fans are not equipped to separate where Ross, Grier, Tannenbaum, Flores or McDaniel operate independently.

Any fan who thinks they know is lying to themselves saying things like, 'this move was Flores' or 'that move was Tannenbaum.' As fans, we simply don't know the truth. No offense but getting older gives you the perspective to sit back and see it as part of a longer storyline.

In the end, fans trying to sort out who to blame ends up being a way to blame the past guy and provide hope that the current guy is actually now free to steer us towards our true destiny of being that great team we should be. But that's just imagination.

For instance, conventional thinking is that the 'impulsive Mike Tannenbaum' was responsible for splashy moves like the signing of Ndamukong Suh for $114M. But has Chris Grier not done the same with guys like Byron Jones (the top DB in 2020 who cost us $82M)? What about Bradley Chubb who we traded a R1 pick for and signed to a $110M deal? Or what about Tyreek Hill who we signed to a $120M deal after giving up picks in R1, R2, as well as a couple in R4? Those are as splashy as it gets!

If we're attributing stuff to Mike Tannenbaum, does he deserve credit for the good picks during his tenure like Laremy Tunsil & Xavien Howard in 2016? What about Minkah Fitzpatrick in 2018? Those are commonly cited draft selections offered in defense of Chris Grier hitting on reasonable talent at the top end of the draft. Without those names, Grier's drafting and team-building looks a lot more shaky and often downright impulsive.



What I see in Chris Grier's tenure from 2019 to now is the same type of behavior we had back in the "Tannenbaum era." We plug holes in the draft impulsively. We occasionally gamble with head-scratchers. We routinely trade away high picks (actually something Grier does more than Tannenbaum). We establish some new big-money deal almost every off-season as if we're that player away from being where we want to be.

The fact is that since Tannenbaum left we have gotten better at trading away draft assets. Meanwhile, we've quietly become a franchise more constrained by the owner's will than ever. The owner tampered and cost us picks. The owner has run afoul of players. The owner thought things could be "fixed" with a complete rebuild / tank. Is that really how the NFL works? Do you not need to hit on picks regardless of where you're at in the draft? Does more picks mean more assets to trade away? Do you not need strong-willed people in positions of power to demand the owner sit back and let football people run the show? Do we actually just have an owner who's promoted a GM who's willing to act in accordance with the Owner's will so long as he's rendered blameless?



What I've seen is a team that makes splashy moves, signs flashy players when in need of a mood-lifting promotion, trades away draft picks, tampers behind the scenes, runs afoul of any coach with experience or vision...

...I'm not the only one beginning to notice what the Dolphins have turned into since 2019. You think they're about to turn the corner. Perhaps they are? But there's also a very compelling case that Grier is a continuation of a longer trend that is part of why the Dolphins don't rise to the level of the elite teams. They don't draft well. They aren't stable year-to-year. They can't identify talent consistently enough to build something with an identity and culture.

Truth is, the Dolphins are the team that trades for and sign other people's draft hits. The Dolphins are a team that has ended up with a GM who hasn't brought any obvious identity to the team in 5+ years on the job and a young HC who's in no position to demand more authority than he has--both of whom leave a lot of questions unanswered.



When you look around the NFL you find that the best teams are able to build rosters by drafting key players. You MUST draft that core. Miami's best players are mostly brought in from outside: DB Jalen Ramsey, LB David Long, DE Bradley Chubb, OT Terron Armstead, C Conner Williams, RB Raheem Mostert, WR Tyreek Hill.

Our best players in virtually every area are brought in. That's not how you build a culture. Teams like Baltimore, Cincinnati, Buffalo and KC have been much better at finding core players in the draft. Every one of those 4 teams has also found a QB in the draft who the market seems to have determined is more valuable than ours.

Every one of those teams has rising stars they've acquired through good drafting. That's how you create value--not by spending money and trading picks. That's just cashing in one asset for another. And when those teams do go to FA they're one step ahead of the competition because they're doing it selectively. Look at how KC gave away a WR (they had drafted) and fixed their OL instead which led to a team that got better over the course of the season.
 
Last edited:
The truth is that fans are not equipped to separate where Ross, Grier, Tannenbaum, Flores or McDaniel operate independently.

Any fan who thinks they know is lying to themselves saying things like, 'this move was Flores' or 'that move was Tannenbaum.' As fans, we simply don't know the truth. No offense but getting older gives you the perspective to sit back and see it as part of a longer storyline.

In the end, fans trying to sort out who to blame ends up being a way to blame the past guy and provide hope that the current guy is actually now free to steer us towards our true destiny of being that great team we should be. But that's just imagination.

For instance, conventional thinking is that the 'impulsive Mike Tannenbaum' was responsible for splashy moves like the signing of Ndamukong Suh for $114M. But has Chris Grier not done the same with guys like Byron Jones (the top DB in 2020 who cost us $82M)? What about Bradley Chubb who we traded a R1 pick for and signed to a $110M deal? Or what about Tyreek Hill who we signed to a $120M deal after giving up picks in R1, R2, as well as a couple in R4? Those are as splashy as it gets!

If we're attributing stuff to Mike Tannenbaum, does he deserve credit for the good picks during his tenure like Laremy Tunsil & Xavien Howard in 2016? What about Minkah Fitzpatrick in 2018? Those are commonly cited draft selections offered in defense of Chris Grier hitting on reasonable talent at the top end of the draft. Without those names, Grier's drafting and team-building looks a lot more shaky and often downright impulsive.



What I see in Chris Grier's tenure from 2019 to now is the same type of behavior we had back in the "Tannenbaum era." We plug holes in the draft impulsively. We occasionally gamble with head-scratchers. We routinely trade away high picks (actually something Grier does more than Tannenbaum). We establish some new big-money deal almost every off-season as if we're that player away from being where we want to be.

The fact is that since Tannenbaum left we have gotten better at trading away draft assets. Meanwhile, we've quietly become a franchise more constrained by the owner's will than ever. The owner tampered and cost us picks. The owner has run afoul of players. The owner thought things could be "fixed" with a complete rebuild / tank. Is that really how the NFL works? Do you not need to hit on picks regardless of where you're at in the draft? Does more picks mean more assets to trade away? Do you not need strong-willed people in positions of power to demand the owner sit back and let football people run the show? Do we actually just have an owner who's promoted a GM who's willing to act in accordance with the Owner's will so long as he's rendered blameless?



What I've seen is a team that makes splashy moves, signs flashy players when in need of a mood-lifting promotion, trades away draft picks, tampers behind the scenes, runs afoul of any coach with experience or vision...

...I'm not the only one beginning to notice what the Dolphins have turned into since 2019. You think they're about to turn the corner. Perhaps they are? But there's also a very compelling case that Grier is a continuation of a longer trend that is part of why the Dolphins don't rise to the level of the elite teams. They don't draft well. They aren't stable year-to-year. They can't identify talent consistently enough to build something with an identity and culture.

Truth is, the Dolphins are the team that trades for and sign other people's draft hits. The Dolphins are a team that has ended up with a GM who hasn't brought any obvious identity to the team in 5+ years on the job and a young HC who's in no position to demand more authority than he has--both of whom leave a lot of questions unanswered.



When you look around the NFL you find that the best teams are able to build rosters by drafting key players. You MUST draft that core. Miami's best players are mostly brought in from outside: DB Jalen Ramsey, LB David Long, DE Bradley Chubb, OT Terron Armstead, C Conner Williams, RB Raheem Mostert, WR Tyreek Hill.

Our best players in virtually every area are brought in. That's not how you build a culture. Teams like Baltimore, Cincinnati, Buffalo and KC have been much better at finding core players in the draft. Every one of those 4 teams has also found a QB in the draft who the market seems to have determined is more valuable than ours.

Every one of those teams has rising stars they've acquired through good drafting. That's how you create value--not by spending money and trading picks. That's just cashing in one asset for another. And when those teams do go to FA they're one step ahead of the competition because they're doing it selectively. Look at how KC gave away a WR (they had drafted) and fixed their OL instead which led to a team that got better over the course of the season.
Nice post I can tell you put time into it. However, as I stated, Grier is judged starting in 2019. Since 2019, we have drafted well and drafted a young core (Tua, Waddle, Achane, AJ, Eich, Wilkins, Raekwon, Van Ginkel, Phillips & Holland. We are among 2-3 teams that have 4 straight winning seasons and just made the playoffs 2 straight years. Our young coach is instilling a winning culture and an identity.
I feel like what you are describing is what was happening before 2019. That simply is not the case anymore.
 
Nice post I can tell you put time into it. However, as I stated, Grier is judged starting in 2019. Since 2019, we have drafted well and drafted a young core (Tua, Waddle, Achane, AJ, Eich, Wilkins, Raekwon, Van Ginkel, Phillips & Holland. We are among 2-3 teams that have 4 straight winning seasons and just made the playoffs 2 straight years. Our young coach is instilling a winning culture and an identity.
I feel like what you are describing is what was happening before 2019. That simply is not the case anymore.

Most of those players were top-40 picks in the draft: Tua, Waddle, Jackson, Wilkins, Hunt, Phillips and Holland. Several of those were top-20 and quite honestly, some of those "hits" are debatable due to the others available at the same position.

Keep in mind that when it comes to finding value in the draft it's not a "hit" if it doesn't create value relative to the alternative options that other teams are taking alongside you. You have to out-perform the competition.

A few examples of applying just a bit of scrutiny...

#1
You were either getting Tua Tagovailoa or Justin Herbert at #5 if you were dead set on a QB. How much of a "hit" was Tua considering he's been pretty much the guy we imagined him to be along with the fact that the alternative has also been productive? If we had selected the other guy would we not be able to adequately defend that choice just as easily? Heck, the next two QBs were Jordan Love and Jalen Hurts who've both gone to and won Playoff games.

Again, it's not about whether you drafted a starter but whether you drafted better than the alternatives who went to the competition.

#2
You weren't doing worse than Jaylen Waddle with that pick given the alternatives were Devonta Smith, Ja'marr Chase, Kyle Pitts and Penei Sewell. All have produced as well or in some cases better. The best WR is probably Chase and the best addition in hindsight probably would've been Sewell.

#3
The alternative to DT Christian Wilkins was either DT Dexter Lawrence or DT Jeffry Simmons who both went immediately after Wilkins. The three literally went at #13, #17 and #19, respectively. Both of those other guys have been just as good if not better. Most football fans would say the two most elite guys of the three are Simmons and Lawrence who are both larger threats as disruptive interior players.

#4
The alternative to S Minkah Fitzpatrick was probably CB Jaire Alexander who might've been a better addition strategically considering he was a dedicated outside guy compared with a "versatile" slot/S. Of course, you'll overlook that as 2018.



All of that illustrates why you can't just list the picks that you made in the Top-20 because the alternatives were probably also good players. "Hits" from inside the Top-20 inflate your sense of how good your drafting really is.

Quite honeslty, Raekwon and Eichenberg aren't anything special based on the last few years. And as much as we like him, Achane is a RB and those aren't long-term additions. They're typically around for 1 contract and aren't hard to find in the mid rounds: Ajayi (R5), Drake (R3), Achane (R3).



Point being, the players who've brought definite value above expectation in the draft are the guys between R2-R5 who were way better than the alternative options. That includes Robert Hunt, Jevon Holland and Andrew Van Ginkel...

...and now consider that Hunt and Van Ginkel are both probably signing elsewhere this offseason.


So you have to ask yourself, how well does my argument actually hold up to scrutiny?
 
Last edited:
The truth is that fans are not equipped to separate where Ross, Grier, Tannenbaum, Flores or McDaniel operate independently.

Any fan who thinks they know is lying to themselves saying things like, 'this move was Flores' or 'that move was Tannenbaum.' As fans, we simply don't know the truth. No offense but getting older gives you the perspective to sit back and see it as part of a longer storyline.

In the end, fans trying to sort out who to blame ends up being a way to blame the past guy and provide hope that the current guy is actually now free to steer us towards our true destiny of being that great team we should be. But that's just imagination.

For instance, conventional thinking is that the 'impulsive Mike Tannenbaum' was responsible for splashy moves like the signing of Ndamukong Suh for $114M. But has Chris Grier not done the same with guys like Byron Jones (the top DB in 2020 who cost us $82M)? What about Bradley Chubb who we traded a R1 pick for and signed to a $110M deal? Or what about Tyreek Hill who we signed to a $120M deal after giving up picks in R1, R2, as well as a couple in R4? Those are as splashy as it gets!

If we're attributing stuff to Mike Tannenbaum, does he deserve credit for the good picks during his tenure like Laremy Tunsil & Xavien Howard in 2016? What about Minkah Fitzpatrick in 2018? Those are commonly cited draft selections offered in defense of Chris Grier hitting on reasonable talent at the top end of the draft. Without those names, Grier's drafting and team-building looks a lot more shaky and often downright impulsive.



What I see in Chris Grier's tenure from 2019 to now is the same type of behavior we had back in the "Tannenbaum era." We plug holes in the draft impulsively. We occasionally gamble with head-scratchers. We routinely trade away high picks (actually something Grier does more than Tannenbaum). We establish some new big-money deal almost every off-season as if we're that player away from being where we want to be.

The fact is that since Tannenbaum left we have gotten better at trading away draft assets. Meanwhile, we've quietly become a franchise more constrained by the owner's will than ever. The owner tampered and cost us picks. The owner has run afoul of players. The owner thought things could be "fixed" with a complete rebuild / tank. Is that really how the NFL works? Do you not need to hit on picks regardless of where you're at in the draft? Does more picks mean more assets to trade away? Do you not need strong-willed people in positions of power to demand the owner sit back and let football people run the show? Do we actually just have an owner who's promoted a GM who's willing to act in accordance with the Owner's will so long as he's rendered blameless?



What I've seen is a team that makes splashy moves, signs flashy players when in need of a mood-lifting promotion, trades away draft picks, tampers behind the scenes, runs afoul of any coach with experience or vision...

...I'm not the only one beginning to notice what the Dolphins have turned into since 2019. You think they're about to turn the corner. Perhaps they are? But there's also a very compelling case that Grier is a continuation of a longer trend that is part of why the Dolphins don't rise to the level of the elite teams. They don't draft well. They aren't stable year-to-year. They can't identify talent consistently enough to build something with an identity and culture.

Truth is, the Dolphins are the team that trades for and sign other people's draft hits. The Dolphins are a team that has ended up with a GM who hasn't brought any obvious identity to the team in 5+ years on the job and a young HC who's in no position to demand more authority than he has--both of whom leave a lot of questions unanswered.



When you look around the NFL you find that the best teams are able to build rosters by drafting key players. You MUST draft that core. Miami's best players are mostly brought in from outside: DB Jalen Ramsey, LB David Long, DE Bradley Chubb, OT Terron Armstead, C Conner Williams, RB Raheem Mostert, WR Tyreek Hill.

Our best players in virtually every area are brought in. That's not how you build a culture. Teams like Baltimore, Cincinnati, Buffalo and KC have been much better at finding core players in the draft. Every one of those 4 teams has also found a QB in the draft who the market seems to have determined is more valuable than ours.

Every one of those teams has rising stars they've acquired through good drafting. That's how you create value--not by spending money and trading picks. That's just cashing in one asset for another. And when those teams do go to FA they're one step ahead of the competition because they're doing it selectively. Look at how KC gave away a WR (they had drafted) and fixed their OL instead which led to a team that got better over the course of the season.
You forgot the Lions and Titans when naming teams that find core players through the draft.
 
Most of those players were top-40 picks in the draft: Tua, Waddle, Jackson, Wilkins, Hunt, Phillips and Holland. Several of those were top-20 and quite honestly, some of those "hits" are debatable due to the others available at the same position.

Keep in mind that when it comes to finding value in the draft it's not a "hit" if it doesn't create value relative to the alternative options that other teams are taking alongside you. You have to out-perform the competition.

A few examples of applying just a bit of scrutiny...

#1
You were either getting Tua Tagovailoa or Justin Herbert at #5 if you were dead set on a QB. How much of a "hit" was Tua considering he's been pretty much the guy we imagined him to be along with the fact that the alternative has also been productive? If we had selected the other guy would we not be able to adequately defend that choice just as easily? Heck, the next two QBs were Jordan Love and Jalen Hurts who've both gone to and won Playoff games.

Again, it's not about whether you drafted a starter but whether you drafted better than the alternatives who went to the competition.

#2
You weren't doing worse than Jaylen Waddle with that pick given the alternatives were Devonta Smith, Ja'marr Chase, Kyle Pitts and Penei Sewell. All have produced as well or in some cases better. The best WR is probably Chase and the best addition in hindsight probably would've been Sewell.

#3
The alternative to DT Christian Wilkins was either DT Dexter Lawrence or DT Jeffry Simmons who both went immediately after Wilkins. The three literally went at #13, #17 and #19, respectively. Both of those other guys have been just as good if not better. Most football fans would say the two most elite guys of the three are Simmons and Lawrence who are both larger threats as disruptive interior players.

#4
The alternative to S Minkah Fitzpatrick was probably CB Jaire Alexander who might've been a better addition strategically considering he was a dedicated outside guy compared with a "versatile" slot/S. Of course, you'll overlook that as 2018.



All of that illustrates why you can't just list the picks that you made in the Top-20 because the alternatives were probably also good players. "Hits" from inside the Top-20 inflate your sense of how good your drafting really is.

Quite honeslty, Raekwon and Eichenberg aren't anything special based on the last few years. And as much as we like him, Achane is a RB and those aren't long-term additions. They're typically around for 1 contract and aren't hard to find in the mid rounds: Ajayi (R5), Drake (R3), Achane (R3).



Point being, the players who've brought definite value above expectation in the draft are the guys between R2-R5 who were way better than the alternative options. That includes Robert Hunt, Jevon Holland and Andrew Van Ginkel...

...and now consider that Hunt and Van Ginkel are both probably signing elsewhere this offseason.


So you have to ask yourself, how well does my argument actually hold up to scrutiny?

I see your point in theory. I disagree within reality. As an investor, there are always arguments about what is the 'best' investment. If my stock triples in a year and another quadruples, is that really NOT a 'hit?' And, just as that is true of every investor, it is true for 31 other teams. In every draft there are multiple picks in which a 'better' player was available. Look no further than complaints in the 31 other fora. Even multiple teams passing on a 'better' player in the same year/same round. Hindsight does that. And, yes, there are always fans arguing, correctly, they wanted the better player. But, if multiple teams (and 'experts' who rank players) pass on the 'better' player (e.g., Mahomes), can any one team be called out for it or is it the messiness of judging talent. After all, KC didn't think he was good enough to move up to get. They were willing to gamble.
Every year there are low R1 picks who surprise and high R1 picks who disappoint. Yes, teams could have drafted a better talent, but that doesn't carry with it the quilt of incompetence as much as the messiness of human valuations.
 
Back
Top Bottom