Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Honestly....I kinda think they might.
The only thing that might've given us a dispositive answer either way is had Conerly still been on the board and they still took Simmons.
I think this pick actually became more about opportunity cost than it was about medical risk. I think they looked at their board and decided that the healing went well ENOUGH to keep him on the board. Which they can easily say at this point in the draft -- the surgery didn't fail.
So then it just comes down to them saying "Alright, from the tape we think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT if healthy. And a 25% chance he gets back to where he was. So there's a 20% chance he's a plus starting LT for the next decade. Meanwhile #2 on our board is Nic Scourton and there's a 70% chance he'll be a solid DE for us. But there's this guy Gillotte who we think we can get 30 picks later who's odds are about the same.
So **** it -- lets spin the wheel and take our chances..."
I think when it came down to it, the opportunity cost just wasn't terribly high for them and they had a specific area they wanted to address; which was corroborated by Andy's quote saying they were targeting LT in the 1st round.
I won't speak for Crow or Duncan, but I think almost all of you are speaking PAST my point. And it's only that I don't think there's an 80% chance that he's a starting LT when healthy and I DO think the opportunity cost was higher than the Chiefs did. Though I have again acknowledged that it did come down a bit as the draft progressed.
At that point it's a strict player evaluation question. And yes, many of us HAVE gotten that question right when Veach has gotten it wrong. Even if he'll be right 9 times out of 10, it shouldn't close off discussion that this is that 1 time that us dumb schlubs on the internet got one over on him. It's happened before (Moore, Speaks, MEH, FAU) and it'll happen again.
|
Yeah, I have no issue with someone not liking the pick or saying the risk is higher than they would like and wanting a perfectly healthy player.
But to think the Chiefs agree with your negative assessment probability as 25% and took him anyway is too much to accept.
No way do they agree with that number. And I think NFL teams have far better info to calculate risk than guys on a message board adding in players from 25 years ago or players that were near retirement anyway.