Having serious doubts about KAM already?

Well that guy has an agenda to push, crafting a loaded question is just part of it.

Data doesn't exist in a vacuum - I say this as a long time (25 years +) sports bettor who uses plenty of data.  No matter how good you think your model is it's still a guess at future results, and it's very easy to get fooled by short sample sizes - even ones that you think aren't short.   Backfitting and thinking you're on to something is another real issue.

And there are times when your numbers tell you to make a move that feels wrong, and learning to identify those times and avoid those potholes is a skill that takes years to develop.   I do know some guys who do pure numbers but most don't, most rely at times on intuition, information, and experience.   

Kwesi seems from what I've read about this draft to be in love with the idea of making moves based on numbers alone using a model(s) that not every other team has, or uses even if they have them - this implies an edge, if his models actually work and are correct.   It would imply a negative edge if that doesn't turn out to be true.   

The fact that a guy on twitter id's a public model and it happens to show Kwesi won the Detroit deal (vs. say Jimmy Johnson model which says he lost) doesn't really mean anything.   At least, to me it would not be the impetus to imply in a public forum that disagreement means you're stupid, as Computer Cowboy did.

It's a lot easier to be data-driven in baseball when you play literally 10x as many games as you do in football.   And while for example the analytics crowd has been cheering a guy like Brandon Staley for his various moves, the common sense crowd saw him blow some games and a playoff berth this past year.  Perhaps his moves were the right ones, and the models they are based on are correct, but if those models show those moves working over say 200 data points, what are the odds Brandon Staley (or anyone in football) will get the chance to make so many critical decisions that he will overcome variance and prove the model?   

A coaching career that doesn't trend upwards in this league often gets no more than 2-3 seasons - 34-51 games.   Variance is a b*tch, not always your friend, and even if the model is right you may never see the positive results before you're fired.   You might do better to shortcut the reliance on pure numbers and supplement it with what your own brain tells you at times.   JMO.

Personally when I saw we traded with Detroit I had visions of owning their 1st next year in a draft with some real qb talent.   The subsequent rush to justify the actual outcome obviously had to happen to fill the void of disgust that deal engendered in most fans.  It feels like one of those situations that people will argue endlessly to no resolution.

For me, the art of the deal is more than just a numbers game and even if we have a model that proclaims we "won" (or at least didn't get fleeced), I think our g.m. would have been better off learning to just say no.   Or holding out for a better haul.  Just a thought from a guy who is not a genius and did not go to Harvard.

Sure, poker can be reduced to known mathematical odds, but there's then there's the behavioral variables. In the case of the draft, it is much further from science and the "odds" are mostly unknowable. Granted, we can predict that a WR or DB who runs a 4.3 will have a much higher chance of success than the one who runs 4.8 (who has already been weeded out). Beyond that, who knows? At the end of the day, we got our S and CB for less draft capital than we expected. Somebody must have done something smart for us to get there....

This was a great, thoughtful post. I appreciate the insight and you made some great points. I think my point in sharing is this one is murky. Like you said, maybe over hundreds of opportunities this would bear out, but in a short amount of opportunities it's unclear. That's my point... it's murky enough to be inconclusive. There is no way this was a fleecing by either team. I'd definitely rather have their 1st next year, but that wasn't on the table. Given the holes in the roster, and that even at pick 12 it's a 50/50 that the player taken is a bust, I'll take multiple swings in the top 60 to try to hedge our bets. Just not like Spielman where that means trying to own all the picks in the 5th-7th rounds.

OK cool, you got receipts. We got torched by Megatron for years too but turns out we still usually beat them. I think it will be OK.

He had a few big games but you're right we did ok. It's not like the nightmares our players have given our division rivals over time. When I think about what guys like Peterson, Moss, and now Jefferson are doing to our rivals it gives me a warm feeling in my soul.

we can go round and round on whether you think something is spin and I don't. The vikings wanted to move down. The saints wanted to move up. Big difference. The vikings didn't have someone on their board worth the 12th pick. But they did have a bunch of guys worth somewhere between the 12th and 40th pick. So they got two of them instead of one. The saints had a guy on their board worth what they gave up. Just because someone did something a certain way in the past doesn't mean it's exactly the same the next time. This is not math. 1+1=2 right now doesn't mean that 1+1=2 the next time.

your apples to apples in not. Maybe it's not apples to oranges and maybe it's not even red apples to green apples. But gala to fuji. And that's why when I say people should take the time to understand that they don't understand all of the parameters. I don't. I wasn't happy with the trade initially and I'm still not overly thrilled about it but Kwesi got what he wanted and needed to make the deal. If you think you know why it made sense based on the information available to us then you're wrong. Could it end up a disaster? Sure. Is there any way to make that conclusion right now? No way.




Yes. Absolutely. He probably embraces alternate view points as opposed to just acknowledging them.

A good leader also makes decisions that don't always follow the status quo. Ones that aren't always the most popular. That's what makes good leaders great leaders. It also potentially makes them massive failures. But the willingness to do so is very important. He'll answer all the questions he has to. He understands that it's part of the job.

It's because he doesn't have as much of an emotional attachment to the team that makes me trust him more. If your kid has a moment of weakness and steals a car, you're gonna do everything you possibly can to keep them out of jail. but someone with less emotion in the situation is going to treat them fairly and as they should be treated. How much bias do you think is involved in everyone's reaction to that round 1 trade? We've never won a super bowl. I've been a fan for almost 40 years. There's nothing I want more. And I see us part with the 12th pick when last year, the 12th pick was a future HOFer. Or that moving down 20 spots for the return we got isn't typical.

That was emotional for us. Everything about this team is emotional for us.

You know what this team might need? Is someone who can put all of that emotion to side and make decisions which make sense outside of pre-conceived notion and perception. And again, I'm not saying that he's done it the right way, but it seems we're a fair amount from actual judgement day.

So I am defending reason based on information I don't have along with the thought that he's likely smarter than I am about this hence the fact that it's his job. That even if I had the information he does I wouldn't be as good at making the necessary decisions. I am absolutely not saying that he's right or wrong.