Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Waiting three years (or five years) to judge a draft is basically waiting for revisionism to judge a draft.
Some prefer that methodology, I understand. Less risk of being wrong. You can fit narratives to everything after x about of time. Matt Leinart -> parties too much. Etc.
But there's a difference between writing a post-mortem on someone's career and judging assets in a trade, or judging a move in context.
Example: we didn't need the last two seasons to judge the validity of the Mike Shanahan hire. All the information we needed to conclude that it was a bad hire was available two years ago. But since then, he had his best and worst season here. Those events are part of the Mike Shanahan story, but contained no new information about the joke of a coaching search the team ran in 2009.
I'm not necessarily against revisionism in any form, but I don't think waiting until hindsight is 50/50 makes a ton of sense.
|
So basically, unless the players have an immediate impact, the draft was a failure. However, if you wait three years to see how players develop, you are justing filling your own narrative.
Seahawks have had some bad drafts by those measures then, because those drafts weren't considered good moves at the time and it took a year or two for a lot of their high impact players to develop. Well I guess a Super Bowl Championship creates revisionist history on draft picks and how successful they are then.