Gee, maybe those two things fit. We haven't been to another Super Bowl since. Hhmm. How could those two things fit together. And, YES, other teams blow picks, not EVERY first pick. At least not ones that win. Yes, they have made good picks after their first one, how does that have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the pick that should help you the most they have blown!?
Seattle hasn't drafted higher than 27th since 2012. Who, in that same stretch, has had the same draft stock, and how have they faired, comparatively?
Until you can answer this question you have failed to make your case.
Show your proof - show the drafting comparisons that back your claim of all these failed picks in concert with other teams in the exact same situation. Isn't that the logical way to define the success/failure rate? What intel, besides emotions, are you crunching? My guess is nothing.
You won't answer this because you can't. There is no data other than your emotions that verifies your position. None. Show similar situations and the success and failure rates - and show your data points.
Everyone on here knows you can't - if you could, you'd have posted it years ago. Guess who the last two people they picked at 27 were? Brooks (playing well) and Bruce Irvin - still in the league.
Just once I'd like to see some proof. I will literally close my account if you can back your claim. Have you factored in the difficulty in the cost versus productivity rates of end of/late first round picks?
You're not proving your position unless you have something to back it up. Someone else was kind enough to post a statistical analysis of drafts that basically proved you wrong using real world data and not emotions of what you feel you are entitled to, fan wise.
Show data that backs your position, or accept the reality you are dead wrong - and trying to dodge the request simply means you admit there is nothing that backs up your claim. I would love to see data proof - and for the 1,000th time, your emotions and fan demands are not proof. Show us - other teams success/failure rates using the same draft capital. Should be easy. One quick note - Arizona, the Lambs and SF all stacked their roster and rebuilt by bottoming out and getting a lot of top end draft capital to restock - while Seattle has not had that luxury - while still being a perennial playoff contender.
You can easily settle the argument. Anything other than showing statistical proof and data to back it up means your position is false. I really want to see this. Show us. And Seattle failing to win Super Bowls is not proof of anything other than your personal wants.
