And who ever thinks that the draft is a crap shoot needs to get their head examined. There's a reason why some teams pick in the top 5-10 year after year, they can't scout and either reach or miss on players that were "sure" things

The reason some teams pick top 5-10 has to do with many things. Anyone who thinks the draft is the final culprit isn't paying attention. See my post below. The Patriots didn't draft extremely well from 2004-2008 and yet they won the most games in that span.

Ooops...

Nice deflection. I never said the draft was the only way to succeed. The Pats are notorious for signing free-agents to accomplish their goals. And they have the best HC in the entire league.

I said some teams are better than others AT DRAFTING, and it appears we aren't very good at drafting of late, and the last 5 years of mostly failure sure point that out, especially compared with our rival.

Ooops...

Between 2004-2008:

31.70 is the percentage of drafted players on the roster
19.50 is the percentage of players drafted who are actually starters
7.30 is the percentage of drafted pro bowl players
78.75 is the winning percentage

For which team?

3 in 10 are still on the roster. 2 in 10 actually start.

For a team with a near 80% winning mark over the 4 years in question?

That's Bill Belichik and the New England Patriots.

13 teams managed to keep 50% or more of their drafter players on the roster (maybe many of those rosters sucked). 36.4 was the highest percentage of drafted starters. The rest of the league was below that. Over the 4 years, the Patriots had the highest winning percentage.

For the Saints over the 4 years, 4 in 10 make the roster and 3 in 10 start.

It's a crap shoot Danno - at best an educated gamble. Still a gamble any way you slice it.

I'm fine with calculated crapshoot. There are quite a few draft picks we've made that I've really liked... but so far has not panned out. I think what we need to do better is coach and develop our players up to match their talents. It's also hard to predict how a young man re-acts to newfound fame and fortune... which in turn, can affect their play on the field too.

Basically what I'm saying is that we need to do a better job minimizing our calulated crapshoot with better coaching and developing. They all have talent if not they wouldn't be considered... we need to get more out of them.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to add to the scouting department though to also help minimize the risk factors.

I don't think I'm playing both sides of the fence here am I?

Well if you're of the opinion we need better scouts then obviously you think some teams are better than others at drafting, and better scouts equate to better drafting. So its obvious you agree that its not a crap shoot.

I do think we need some better scouts.

At the same time, I think there's a big difference between a crap shoot and a calculated crap shoot. That's why I can't dismiss either one of yours of saintfan's point. There's logic between both and the think the problem here lies within the word "crap shoot".

I don't agree the draft is "just" a crap shoot but I do agree it's a calculated gamble/crap shoot. Obviously, like gambling, some are better than others at it. Just a crap shoot would be saying the draft is all luck... which it isn't and not something I agree with either.