You have a distaste for any criticism of Payton, Loomis; you spin it personal as it's only personal for you...

Not true. If the criticism is warranted I have no problem. We simply have a differing viewpoint of when and what is warranted. In certain areas their philosophy differs from yours. In certain areas your philosophies differ from mine. That doesn't make any of us wrong. It means we favor different approaches.

Name instances you've criticized Payton, Loomis - we'll wait...

You have a distaste for any criticism of Payton, Loomis; you spin it personal as it's only personal for you...

Not true. If the criticism is warranted I have no problem. We simply have a differing viewpoint of when and what is warranted. In certain areas their philosophy differs from yours. In certain areas your philosophies differ from mine. That doesn't make any of us wrong. It means we favor different approaches.

You're unable to name instances where criticism of the Payton-Loomis Management team was warranted? They've done it all perfectly all this time?

Nothing anymore than any other GM or coach. Maybe a timeout being called or not here or there. I'm certainly not going to criticize them for draft picks given the extremely inexact science of its nature. I'm not going to criticize them for contract structures as a whole, nor moving up or down in a draft because I believe they know what they are doing FAR more than any of us.

There's not a single coach or GM in the league that is perfect all the time. I expect imperfection so I usually see no reason to dwell on individual instances. I'd rather sit back and enjoy since none of us have any control whatsoever.

That doesn't sync with your previous arguments - If it's that inexact, logically one could argue they're overcompensated, any slapdick could do that job...

Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science.

An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%.

Here's a nice summary:

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low.

Not at all. They are many times more qualified than any of us. Yet, even with those extra qualifications and additional information including access to medicals and face-to-face interviews nobody knows for certain how a draftee is going to work out. Using all of the information available to them they are all making their best educated "guess" of the eventual success of the selected prospect. It is absolutely an inexact science.

An extensive study done in 2015 on all drafts picks (non-kickers) between 2005 and 2014 showed that only 25.5% of all drafted players became starters for at least half of their careers. It also broke it down between rounds taken and position. The success rate (starting) of DL, RB, and WR picked in the first round is only 58%. QB's are only slightly better at 63%.

Here's a nice summary:

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

Of note are the defensive line draftees. Outside of the fourth round their success rates are dramatically low.

So they're qualified in an inexact science?