Quote:
Originally Posted by TwistedChief
Uhh, obviously. It’s always subjective. But you’re just assuming ex ante he’s the average case. And as more information becomes available, that’s no longer the most informed judgment.
But yes, it’s always going to be subjective. Your analysis is largely based off PFF grades pre- and post-injury. Is that not subjective as well? Does that invalidate the entire study as a result? Of course not.
|
It's not about using subjective PFF grades. The data on ever playing in or starting as many games as prior to the injury is objective and actually less favorable to him than the data using the PFF grade on "return to prior performance." Using that PFF-based metric in the argument for/against drafting him in round 1 increased his odds from 6.5% to 13%, so I used that as a "best case" type of situation. Arguing on purely objective data makes the pick look far worse, not better. Now we're talking 1 case in 25 years and roughly 20-22 players (if we add the guys that have had it since '23) where it truly "worked out."
He really does have to be a "unicorn" as duncan pointed out.