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.