@hoorta said:

Fixed.

Mike

@hoorta said:

George Costanza needs to draft for the Browns and take "the opposite" every time.

@mudfly said:

I was thinking this....and kind of like Williams....and, for a moment, thought he'd be an option for us....

Then I realized Im one of those guys who hates WR in the first.....and thought about WR in the first 2 years in a row?......following a year we drafted 4?.....

Then I took a deep breathe and shook that thought right outta my brain.....

Hey, we can be in the running for the Matt Millen award for drafting two WR busts in consecutive years. Not like there isn't top receiver talent in the first. Odell Beckham, Mike Evans, AJ Green, Julio Jones. We just draft bums in the second like Gregg Little, Mohammed Massoquoi, and Brian Robiski. Eeeeekkkk!!!! Just a few more examples of our legendary draft ineptitude.

@d-bone said:

lol... How 'bout "that we've tried"...

While surely Bill is "the decider", he has key personnel folks that have been around him a while and I think they have significant impact/influence upon him.

We've heard from his staff that he expects them to push back on him when they disagree and bring ideas to him frequently... to think of things he has not thought of. I'd be shocked if it were not the same in the FO.

@tour2ma said:

Don't tell that to Belichick

@wargograw said:

It's 0% are against the decision. It is not a voting process. Consensus means all deciding parties "can live with" the decision... none are opposed.

And it is not as if there are a couple dozen in the room deciding. The Department heads hammer out their Department's takes in meetings at that level and then maybe 9 assemble including Sashi and DePo to begin the consensus process.

@d-bone said:

I've just never seen any "group thinking / no leader" work before in my personal life experiences..... and if 'passing' is the endgame decision for when a bunch of people all can't agree, then I could see our 12 picks quickly turning into 8 picks as the pick clock simply runs out.

Not remotely the way it works... we set a draft board through the consensus process. Sashi leads the process. It is collaborative.

Then we work scenarios outside of the norm... "what if" the shit out of the process. For example:

• What if we take Garrett at one and Solomon, Foster, Williams and OJH are all on the board at 12 and we have no trade partner... just like happened in our mock.
• What if we have a third round choice between an OLB and a OG we like, but there's an OG we think will be there in round 4 that we like almost as much, but no OLB after the 3rd round prospect?

That stuff is worked to death in the weeks before draft day.

When it's our turn on the board we essentially take the predetermined path.

I guarantee you that if it is done right, then collaborative consensus-building produces better decisions with greater consistency than any autocratic process.

@tour2ma said:

I've just never seen any "group thinking / no leader" work before in my personal life experiences..... and if 'passing' is the endgame decision for when a bunch of people all can't agree, then I could see our 12 picks quickly turning into 8 picks as the pick clock simply runs out.

@d-bone said:

I dunno. The head chef cooked up 4 wr's so he must be a 4 headed head chef.

@d-bone said:

Why? And how is "passing" not a decision?

@mudfly said:

Or anywhere that has to do with assessing talent.........oh, wait......

Or anywhere that there isn't an adding machine in the room.

WSS

@mudfly said:

I think you pass...

"We must all hang together or we shall certainly hang separately"... or something like that.

I think it's the strongest part of our potential sustainability... of cultivating talent in our FO.

We have rooms full of "experts"... pro scouts... collegiate scouts... analytical. Sashi drives for consensus, but if none is within reach, then you pass.

@tour2ma said:

fify

There is no "the evaluator" in our FO......top 2 guys aren't even football guys......

What happens when the evaluators have differing opinions on a polarizing player?......who decides?....the computer?......coin flip?......secret ballot?.......

@hoorta said:

I was thinking this....and kind of like Williams....and, for a moment, thought he'd be an option for us....

Then I realized Im one of those guys who hates WR in the first.....and thought about WR in the first 2 years in a row?......following a year we drafted 4?.....

Then I took a deep breathe and shook that thought right outta my brain.....

@mudfly said:

In more serious news.....Clemson has a hell of a lot more players than that QB guy.....and we need some....

So it makes me nervous that Clemson isnt worth the trip.....of all schools, how many have a.....

Mike Williams.....Carlos Watkins......D. Watson.....Tankersley....and Leggett....

Thats a lot of talent we didnt want to see......

Yup Mud with Pryor gone, I could see interest in Williams @ #12, if we're not drafting a QB there.

@the-gipper said:

@mudfly said:

Its true....I DO NOT read every post in a thread before I respond to any post in a thread....do YOU? If you don't, then you have no reason to gripe about the fact that I may have made the same observation as someone else.

Other people can have their say, I can have my say. If we just so happen to say basically the same thing...then you will just have to deal with redundant corrective measures. You will live...and you don't have to cry about it.

@logicisforsquares said:

Dont call me that.....I attack bad moves,the FO, coaching and poor play.............. not other posters.....

@the-gipper said:

Who said they didn't see it? A. They have access to THE most important data set: the film. B. They likely sent someone else...a trusted scout to see these other guys. C. As noted...they would prefer to trust the results of a workout that THEY design...one suited to THEIR purposes...not one suited to the players purposes.

I personally think that Watkins could be a choice they could go for in round 2...and I am sure they had a defensive coach/scout checking him oo

Another Gip post....Blah blah blah blah.....you give the FO WAY more cred than I do.....and you never read before you "blah"....

I already stood corrected...

@mudfly said:

Or anywhere that has to do with assessing talent.........oh, wait......

Step off the ledge, Ghoolie.

@mudfly said:

Who said they didn't see it? A. They have access to THE most important data set: the film. B. They likely sent someone else...a trusted scout to see these other guys. C. As noted...they would prefer to trust the results of a workout that THEY design...one suited to THEIR purposes...not one suited to the players purposes.

I personally think that Watkins could be a choice they could go for in round 2...and I am sure they had a defensive coach/scout checking him oot