Does the FO even consider past draft failures?

[HUbison]

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a million times............"we shouldn't draft a 1st round DT, because of our past 1st round DT busts."

I simply don't get that. EVERY position has busts, and we've botched up picks in every round over the history of the franchise. So please, explain to this particular fan, why past failures should even be considered for present drafts?

Trung Canidate and Lawrence Phillips didn't stop us from taking Steven Jackson. Good thing.
Eddie Kennison didn't stop us from drafting Torry Holt. Good thing.
Jacoby Shepard (2nd) and T. Fisher (2nd) didn't stop us from drafting Tye Hill. Good thing.


If a top DT prospect is available, should past failures come to mind?

[general counsel]

The Big Bison once again evidences the capacity to provoke stimulating debate.

My response. Prior failures are irrelevant unless you are discussing the methodology for valuation. Hindsight is 20-20 and there are no guarantees. This is what professional judgment is all about. YOu use your experience to evaluate personnel and you have confidence in your views. You dont say "I wont draft a running back again because a prior running back failed"

Here is what i am talking about with methodology, which doesnt go to positional analysis at all

1) How much emphasis to put on need. It drives me nuts when people say "Draft the best player available regardless of position" no team does that. There are wide ranges of opinion on how far to "reach" for a player based on need. As an example, for the rams to take a qb, running back or offensive tackle right now with the #13 pick would make no sense at all. We are locked in at those positions. Why would anyone want adrian peterson at 13 if he was available to the rams?

2) How much do you count character? Sure, its relevant, but how relevant. Risk equals reward, the more upside the more risk you are willing to take. Risk analysis is different in round one vs round 3.

3) Medical emphasis. How much do you consider prior injury history that is healed today. How much do you consider a current injury that isnt expected to have a long term impact.

I am sure that there are other considerations that people can think of, but from a purely positional standpoint, i dont think its relevant to draft based on prior experience. I think you always look to improve your professional analysis and you go back and look at why a guy didnt do what you expected him to do and see if there are any hints that might help you avoid making the same mistake in the future, but i dont see how you can say that any particular position shouldnt be drafted because you did poorly with it previously. If you do poorly with it long enough, you fire the guy making the decisions and get a new decision maker, you dont decide that you arent going to draft in that spot.

ramming speed to all

general counsel