Picking higher isn't always better

@"StickyBun" said:

@"wiviking" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"medaille" said: Everyone knows that a higher draft pick gives you a better chance at getting players with more potential at being better, but that’s not really what’s at question.  The question is “what should we do?”  What is the strategy for getting the most good players on your team at the same time?  Some things are pretty clear.  A handful of players coming out of college are so good, that it doesn’t really matter they go.  Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Aaron Donald.  These guys would probably have succeeded anywhere, even with the worst coaches.  We can also clearly see that a lot of guys bust.  A lot.  A lot of guys bust.  The NFL draft is not a science.  The best people in the world don’t have this figured out.  The NFL is without a doubt, some amount of crapshoot.

Every good NFL roster is comprised of a handful of superstars,
some quality players, and a bunch of cheap filler guys.  I think winning teams are much less about
picking good players and much more about getting the most out of each and every
player on their roster.  If a coach can
get 2% more out of each player than a different team, their team is going to be
markedly better than the other team, even if that team gets lucky on 1 or 2
players, with maybe the exception of the QB position, which is so important.

I think the most important factor in the draft is that
shitty teams draft near the top.  Shitty
teams ruin players.  Good players leave
shitty teams.  I don’t think very many
well coached teams will end up near the top of the draft, unless there were
catastrophic injury problems the year before. 
I don’t understand tanking, because I think in order to draft high in
the draft, fundamental things you need for your team to be good need to be
broken, and you’re probably bad enough to ruin that QB you’re looking for
unless they are actually that generational talent that will be good no matter
how bad you are.

While there are exceptions, I don't agree that shitty teams ruin good players. I think for the most part, good players are good players and shitty players are shitty players wherever they are.

For example, if a majority of highly drafted players who failed with their original team moved on and did much better with their new team, you would have a good point. But it's not a majority. In fact, it's extremely rare. Just look at the busts above. Winston, Mariota, Richardson, Kalil, Claiborne, Beasley, Flowers, etc....all of them went on to other teams and weren't successful there either. Look at the ones we're familiar with: Kalil, Treadwell, Hughes, Dantzler, Elflein, Alexander, Ponder, Williamson...all played with other teams. All failed. I mean I don't think you could find even a handful of examples of players who moved on and then played up to their draft slot. I can't even think of one.  

I suppose you might be saying that the 4 years spent with the shitty team ruined that player beyond repair? Possible I guess, but I don't buy that either. 

It gets murky here though.

Kalil had a stellar first year. As did Elfein. After each players first year, we thought we had solid players for the next decade. Did something occur with our coaching for them to regress and never recover?  I am sure there are many more examples from other teams. But those two players stand out as going from very good to waste of a roster spot in a short amount of time.  

I don't think at all that Kalil had a stellar year. He was way overhyped.