I suspect some here have the false impression that higher draft picks should be lower risk and have higher floors. That isn't the case. A player with tremendous upside but a lower expected value can still go early in the first round based on that upside. Conversely, many late picks are relatively less risky technicians who teams feel have a limited ceiling due to size and athleticism. Where would you draft a player who had a 90% chance of being a bust and a 10% chance of being the greatest of all time? Where would you draft a player who had a 95% chance of being a low quality starter?
As a result, individual picks are not wasted if a player doesn't work out. The player could have under/over performed based on expectations but not hit on the potential they were drafted for. It's very similar to hedging investments positions with options. The options that are not exercised and therefore "wasted" can still be good (or bad) investments and the strategy should be judged on the results of the portfolio.
For all we know, the correct strategy could be to take three more receivers exactly like Jennings and one of them will be the winning lottery ticket we were looking for.
As a result, individual picks are not wasted if a player doesn't work out. The player could have under/over performed based on expectations but not hit on the potential they were drafted for. It's very similar to hedging investments positions with options. The options that are not exercised and therefore "wasted" can still be good (or bad) investments and the strategy should be judged on the results of the portfolio.
For all we know, the correct strategy could be to take three more receivers exactly like Jennings and one of them will be the winning lottery ticket we were looking for.
