Recent Hurney qoute that stands out to me

[shaqattaq]

24 minutes ago, TN05 said:

Otah looked good for the first two seasons before he got hurt and never recovered. That's not on Hurney, just bad luck.

I'm sure that when Hurney was scouting him though that he could grab him a little further down the line. He gave away a lot to get him at 19. I don't recall whether Otah had a history of injuries or not, but he was a day 1 starter in 2008.

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, shaqattaq said:

I'm sure that when Hurney was scouting him though that he could grab him a little further down the line. He gave away a lot to get him at 19. I don't recall whether Otah had a history of injuries or not, but he was a day 1 starter in 2008.

Otah technically cost two first rounders since they had to trade next year's first at the time.

Which reminds me, one of the other issues Hurney had before was falling for misinformation. That's how we ended up trading up for Armanti Edwards.

Hope that's correctable too.

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, panther4life said:

Thats a very good point. He will never be able to gain that direct experience as being a direct scout. However he's been around scouts long enough to know the drill by now. It's not like he's never scouted any player before, he just hasn't done it to the degree as someone who worked their way up the ranks as a career scout.

That also does not preclude him from learning from actual mistakes he made. History shows he really blew the 2nd round almost yearly. It also shows he was clearly looking to fill an immediate need on our roster and straying away from his approach he had to round 1. 

Almost every time he reached to fill an immediate need it backfired or didn't work. Other times later in the draft when he seemed to settle down and stick to BPA vs looking to fill an immediate hole he faired much better.

I am very cautiously optimistic he can do a good job in this draft. If nothing else he hasn't backed himself into a corner and is not forcing himself to  reach for a player to fill a massive hole on the roster like he did so often in the past. 

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent point. The way that you approach the draft is arguably much more important and "fixable." I mean, most of these guys, especially the top ones have been scouted ad nauseum. The actual choices and how you construct the team is where the pudding is made!

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Excellent point. The way that you approach the draft is arguably much more important and "fixable." I mean, most of these guys, especially the top ones have been scouted ad nauseum. The actual choices and how you construct the team is where the pudding is made!

Looking at the team's Hurney has constructed in the past, that's not exactly a reason to be optimistic.

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Looking at the team's Hurney has constructed in the past, that's not exactly a reason to be optimistic.

The past is the past. At least he's saying the right things regarding the draft. It may be arguable, but he's already showing that he's made some strides regarding making the hard choice in free agency (Norwell) and making thoughtful choices to fill some glaring holes. The draft will give us a more complete picture.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, top dawg said:

The past is the past. At least he's saying the right things regarding the draft. It may be arguable, but he's already showing that he's made some strides regarding making the hard choice in free agency (Norwell) and making thoughtful choices to fill some glaring holes. The draft will give us a more complete picture.

The draft doesn't tell us anything until we see guys play. And even then, we're still talking a couple of years to properly evaluate.

[top dawg]

9 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

The draft doesn't tell us anything until we see guys play. And even then, we're still talking a couple of years to properly evaluate.

The draft will tell us something, and it will indeed give us a more complete picture, just not the final product. 

The grading and ranking system of all these scouts and execs can never be perfect due to the nature of the dynamics of all the things can go right or wrong with the many personalities and talents of prospective draftees, but we can get a sense of how well a GM has done---whether he has given it the good, old college try---based upon the imperfection. I think that Star Lotulelei is a great example of what I'm trying to say. Everyone was ecstatic when we obtained him, but just because he arguably didn't live up to expectations doesn't really mean that Gettleman fuged up when he drafted him. Star was the consensus logical pick at that time based upon what was known. Christian McCaffrey is another example (even if less so). People pretty much knew/know that he should be a decent pro, but just because Alvin Kamara arguably outplayed him doesn't necessarily mean that you can fault the GM for drafting McCaffrey over Kamara due to the information available at the time. Some things just make sense, and others less so to varying degrees, based upon each team's situation, so we can at least get a sense of whether a draft is at least a good effort as it's happening.