The Scot Mccloughan argument and why it's wrong.

[Popeyejones]

He seemed to be very effective for SF when he was there too.

In 2008 he drafted Kentwan Balmer, Chilo Rachal, Reggie Smith, Cody Wallace, Josh Morgan, and Larry Grant.

It was a draft class as bad as the 9ers 2012 class under Baalke, or the Hawks' draft classes of '13 and '14, if not worse.

The draft is random. People hate randomness, so they ceaselessly try to apply meaning to it.

Scot isn't a player acqiuisition genius just like PC/JS aren't player acquisition geniuses.

People have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks and we try to make meaning out them.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

People have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks and we try to make meaning out them.

This is too absolute. Making some illusionary correlations doesn't mean all perceived correlations are illusions.

 

[StoneCold]

People have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks and we try to make meaning out them.

This is too absolute. Making some illusionary correlations doesn't mean all perceived correlations are illusions.

Back when online poker was still semi legal here in Wa, I played hundreds of hands. I had no interest in losing money so I began to study. I read books and joined poker forums and discussed hands and strategies and learned some maths to calculate odds. One of the most difficult barriers to good play is recognizing when your actions succeeded due to luck or skill. It takes time to recognize that the reason playing A9 suited won was luck and not skill, but in the meantime winning is a self reinforcing experience. It takes experience winning and losing and self examination to come to a deeper understanding of how your actions truly contribute to the outcome of the game. There are things you control, whether to play a hand or not, whether to bet after the flop or fold, whether it's worth paying to see the next card. And there are things you don't. What cards your dealt, the flop, turn and river. The stupid lucky bastard that sucks out on the river in a hand they had no business playing. It's part of the game.

The draft is not unlike a hand of poker. I will end my little post by avoiding using a Forrest Gump quote.

 

[canfan]

I don't agree.

He seemed to be very effective for SF when he was there too.

So either he was instrumental or someone that worked for/with him was.

But it is ridiculous to point to the guy that had key contributions in two places, leaves and then both places encounter severe dropoffs, and then make excuses or plausible reasons it couldn't have been him.

If it is coincidence, it is a strange coincidence that when he leaves great players at low rounds cease to be as easy a find.

We are looking for reasons we are going to be able to create another draft filled with 2-5th rounders that make the Pro Bowl repeatedly and those reasons are not likely to manifest.

You both may be on to something but I still think it's combination of things. You may be able to recognize talent but they still have to be in an environment where they can succeed. Doesn't have anything to do with Scot but, as I have said many times, could Marshawn have succeeded in any other place than here? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Here's a good visual list of Scot's picks:

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/balitmore ... s#slide-26

To read that article is to believe that Scott made every one of those picks in a vacuum and nobody else had input. For example, Pete Carroll gives Schneider the credit for banging on the table for RW. The article gives all the credit for the Russell Wilson pick to McCloughan. The bottom line is that nobody knows how much he impacted the drafts in Santa Clara and Seattle. That said, I like a lot of the players he has picked since he joined the Redskins.

 

[Popeyejones]

People have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks and we try to make meaning out them.

This is too absolute. Making some illusionary correlations doesn't mean all perceived correlations are illusions.

Back when online poker was still semi legal here in Wa, I played hundreds of hands. I had no interest in losing money so I began to study. I read books and joined poker forums and discussed hands and strategies and learned some maths to calculate odds. One of the most difficult barriers to good play is recognizing when your actions succeeded due to luck or skill. It takes time to recognize that the reason playing A9 suited won was luck and not skill, but in the meantime winning is a self reinforcing experience. It takes experience winning and losing and self examination to come to a deeper understanding of how your actions truly contribute to the outcome of the game. There are things you control, whether to play a hand or not, whether to bet after the flop or fold, whether it's worth paying to see the next card. And there are things you don't. What cards your dealt, the flop, turn and river. The stupid lucky bastard that sucks out on the river in a hand they had no business playing. It's part of the game.

The draft is not unlike a hand of poker. I will end my little post by avoiding using a Forrest Gump quote.

:lol:

I think this is actually a really good example that proves my point (and to be clear in regards to BirdsCommaAngry's comment on mine, I was just referring to the draft).

By way of a poker story:

I have a friend who, when online poker was legal everywhere and a really popular leisure activity, did what you did and started reading a ton and got really invested in poker strategy.

He became an expert and made a living doing it. He quit his job and just through playing poker bought a house and a BMW, and was making a couple hundred thousands dollars a year.

Then online poker started being regulated more which limited the number of casual players, and then the poker fad also died down, so by a few years ago almost all the casual players were gone.

He spent the next year or two breaking even before he realized he needed to get a day job again.

What was happening was that over time all the people with expertise were just splitting the money of the casual players, and making their livings off it. With all the casual players gone, over time all the experts were just breaking even with each other.

Making the Comparison: Take the best 32 poker players in the world, and give them a staff of 50 plus people who work year round to ensure that they're the best poker players.

At this table of the best 32 poker players in the world, who ends up winning on any given hand is purely a matter of chance.

That's what the NFL draft is.

 

[StoneCold]

People have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks and we try to make meaning out them.

This is too absolute. Making some illusionary correlations doesn't mean all perceived correlations are illusions.

Back when online poker was still semi legal here in Wa, I played hundreds of hands. I had no interest in losing money so I began to study. I read books and joined poker forums and discussed hands and strategies and learned some maths to calculate odds. One of the most difficult barriers to good play is recognizing when your actions succeeded due to luck or skill. It takes time to recognize that the reason playing A9 suited won was luck and not skill, but in the meantime winning is a self reinforcing experience. It takes experience winning and losing and self examination to come to a deeper understanding of how your actions truly contribute to the outcome of the game. There are things you control, whether to play a hand or not, whether to bet after the flop or fold, whether it's worth paying to see the next card. And there are things you don't. What cards your dealt, the flop, turn and river. The stupid lucky bastard that sucks out on the river in a hand they had no business playing. It's part of the game.

The draft is not unlike a hand of poker. I will end my little post by avoiding using a Forrest Gump quote.

:lol:

I think this is actually a really good example that proves my point (and to be clear in regards to BirdsCommaAngry's comment on mine, I was just referring to the draft).

By way of a poker story:

I have a friend who, when online poker was legal everywhere and a really popular leisure activity, did what you did and started reading a ton and got really invested in poker strategy.

He became an expert and made a living doing it. He quit his job and just through playing poker bought a house and a BMW, and was making a couple hundred thousands dollars a year.

Then online poker started being regulated more which limited the number of casual players, and then the poker fad also died down, so by a few years ago almost all the casual players were gone.

He spent the next year or two breaking even before he realized he needed to get a day job again.

What was happening was that over time all the people with expertise were just splitting the money of the casual players, and making their livings off it. With all the casual players gone, over time all the experts were just breaking even with each other.

Making the Comparison: Take the best 32 poker players in the world, and give them a staff of 50 plus people who work year round to ensure that they're the best poker players.

At this table of the best 32 poker players in the world, who ends up winning on any given hand is purely a matter of chance.

That's what the NFL draft is.

I never made a living, but was profitable and it was a fun hobby that paid for a vacation or two. And it did get harder as it was winding down. In the end I was a barely above break even player. There were still and are still players that make a living. They were motivated enough to put in the time to improve there game. I wasn't and on the few sites that allowed American players it was also hard to cash out and I bailed.

So even today, with fewer fish, there are those that excel. I wouldn't equate either situation as pure chance. Among your 32 there are some that are better at the job. The jury is out on where our guys rank. I have seen them do a great job of evaluating talent and in some cases not so good. I've seen them do a great job of teaching the talent they select and then some others not so much. So far it's been enough to keep us in the hunt. Only time will tell if they can keep doing that. I think and hoe they can.

 

[Popeyejones]

What counts as excelling though?

Kid Poker, the most money making poker player in history, won his last big pot over two years ago when he finished in 14th place in a tournament.

People can still make money because there are still casual players.

Once you get all the way up to the tip of the spear, poker becomes a game of chance.

The draft is the same way. If it wasn't there would be people who could draft over value over time, but there isn't. There's just people who earn positive reputations over short bursts of success (e.g. PC & JS' two years of being draft magicians before somehow losing their magical abilities) and confirmation bias takes care of the rest (e.g. Scot M.'s truly awful draft in 08, that he never controlled they keys in Seattle, and that the ascendant team in Washington was mostly drafted by his predecessor)

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

(and to be clear in regards to BirdsCommaAngry's comment on mine, I was just referring to the draft).

Gotcha. That makes infinitely more sense!

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Once you get all the way up to the tip of the spear, poker becomes a game of chance.

This is interesting because I agree and disagree depending on who's involved. Overall, I think saying it's all chance only applies when skill and effort is very similar regardless of whether it's poker or the NFL draft. For example, if we're comparing John Schneider, Ozzie Newsome, or Kevin Colbert, then yeah, a coin flip might predict whose going to draft, say, the next late round all-pro player as well as or better than we, the fans, can. However, if we're making a bet on which GM between two will select the next late round all-pro player, aren't there some GMs you'd rather not let the coin flip pick and instead pick yourself, like betting on Kevin Colbert rather than Mickey Loomis?

 

[JSeahawks]

I have a question for you guys. Typically when I make posts like this they tend to be viewed or commented on less than most others. If this is as uninteresting of a topic at is appears to be, why is this the case?

A lot of words with more then two syllables in there. Threw me off.

(Personally, i never read the long posts. From anybody. Including when Kearly used to be here. But dont let that change how you post, just keep on posting what you want to post how you want to post it.)

 

[Popeyejones]

I have a question for you guys. Typically when I make posts like this they tend to be viewed or commented on less than most others. If this is as uninteresting of a topic at is appears to be, why is this the case?

I really like your posts (truly), but agree with what has been said.

I think you and I oftentimes have similar posting styles, in which we go on long exegesis that are filled with words like "exegesis" and many people just skip over them.

Or, as you put it:

As much as football is an escape, it's also very much a real life social experiment offering lessons and cautionary tales about how to better achieve some of our goals.

I think this is very true, and for a lot of people football is (very reasonably) just an escape, and they really don't give a rat about analytic walks into the woods that end pretty far away from the football they started with.

So, you and me both, sister. :lol:

Keep up the posts, though. I read 'em and like 'em. :2thumbs:

 

[Seymour]

I have a question for you guys. Typically when I make posts like this they tend to be viewed or commented on less than most others. If this is as uninteresting of a topic at is appears to be, why is this the case?

A lot of words with more then two syllables in there. Threw me off.

(Personally, i never read the long posts. From anybody. Including when Kearly used to be here. But dont let that change how you post, just keep on posting what you want to post how you want to post it.)

I agree. I think this is similar to the man women thing about word usage. Women use 20,000 words per day compared to men using 7,000. and in the end, the same things get said. If I get impatient reading too much filler and people not getting to the point, I just move on.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Our two best drafts occurred in 2010 and 2012. These were also the two drafts where we selected the highest with our first pick coming at #4 and #15 respectively. In every other draft, we've been making picks from less advantageous positions.

That is an enormous factor indeed.

 

[StoneCold]

What counts as excelling though?

Kid Poker, the most money making poker player in history, won his last big pot over two years ago when he finished in 14th place in a tournament.

People can still make money because there are still casual players.

Once you get all the way up to the tip of the spear, poker becomes a game of chance.

The draft is the same way. If it wasn't there would be people who could draft over value over time, but there isn't. There's just people who earn positive reputations over short bursts of success (e.g. PC & JS' two years of being draft magicians before somehow losing their magical abilities) and confirmation bias takes care of the rest (e.g. Scot M.'s truly awful draft in 08, that he never controlled they keys in Seattle, and that the ascendant team in Washington was mostly drafted by his predecessor)

I would say that even at the highest level each player must use all of their skill to even the odds of winning. That's different than it being all chance...to me. Same could be said of the draft.

 

[AVL]

I don't think we were nearly as good in 2013 as everyone remembers. It did end in unbelievable fashion, but that was hardly the norm. We did have better depth and better luck with injuries, but I think we have had more potential since then.

 

[xgeoff]

He seemed to be very effective for SF when he was there too.

In 2008 he drafted Kentwan Balmer, Chilo Rachal, Reggie Smith, Cody Wallace, Josh Morgan, and Larry Grant.

It was a draft class as bad as the 9ers 2012 class under Baalke, or the Hawks' draft classes of '13 and '14, if not worse.

The draft is random. People hate randomness, so they ceaselessly try to apply meaning to it.

Scot isn't a player acqiuisition genius just like PC/JS aren't player acquisition geniuses.

People have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks and we try to make meaning out them.

This echoes my thoughts. I don't think anyone in the history of the league was able to have consistently reliable evaluation of college talent. There are some interesting thoughts on why we did so well with our initial drafts under JS and PC. And Dan Quinn seems to be doing well with his talent in Atlanta.

I have wondered myself how we were able to strike gold so many times early on and land not only solid players but superstars (Kam, Russ, Sherm) in the later rounds. How could we have struck gold with Richard Sherman and struck out with Tharald Simon?

How did Payton Manning succeed and Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, and any number of other 1st rd QB's flame out. People are infinitely complex, and that's reflected in the seemingly random successes and failures in the draft.