Quote:
Originally Posted by SAGA45
Here's the thing...Do you actually feel like you presented information that the CHIEFS didn't already know about, though? I'm not questioning the study itself. It's that you and a handful of others champion this study as if you stumbled on information that Burkholder and his staff weren't already aware of and hadnt already taken into account throughout their - from all accounts - meticulous evaluation process of Simmons' knee and his recovery progress.
It's one thing to prop up the study as a reason why YOU would personally pass on Simmons leading UP TO the draft. I get and got that part of it just fine. But now that the Chiefs have signed off on his rate of recovery by drafting him, that stance seems pretty weak and borders on you basically saying "Burkholder and his staff dont know wtf their doing! Meanwhile, I actually know wtf Im talking about!" ...which absolutely insane to me.
|
Literally nobody has said that.
We've said one of 2 things -- and really, a combination of both.
1) The Chiefs risk tolerance is higher than ours would be for a pick that early.
2) The Chiefs view the reward of Simmons higher than we would.
I don't know how many times this can be said - nobody is offering a medical opinion. About as close to it as any of us has offered is what amounts to a truism as it relates to surgeries -- outcomes are determined by the rehab.
We say the Chiefs medical staff CAN'T know how that's going to work out because the joint isn't even completely healed yet -- by their own admission. So they're projecting risk and weighing reward. It's no different than taking a small school prospect who doesn't run a complete route tree in the second round. They can weigh that risk vs. that reward and determine that Skyy Moore is a worthwhile selection in the 2nd round because they're willing to project that he'll be able to develop that area of his game. They got the projection wrong. And there projection here, while educated and informed, is still just projection. Because Simmons is about halfway through his recovery/rehab process.
We can say this a million times over and in a hundred different ways and there will STILL be folks like you that militantly refuse to get it. You absolutely insist on the same old tired saws that are - every single year - proven to be silly. "Do you think you know more than the Chiefs?!?!"
I mean...we get stuff right that they get wrong every year. No, we don't know more on balance. Yes, we might just have one specific issue/area right.
And in this case it has nothing to do with our ability to read diagnostic imaging. It's simply our risk tolerance and how we view the respective rewards. This has been the case for over a month now and has been explained repeatedly.
It's even been refined in some cases -- I took the 'risk' element down as the rest of the draft played out and the opportunity cost of busting on that pick diminished as the board played out. My grade went up, not because I earned a medical degree, but because I was comfortable turning the risk knob down a bit. So even though the reward knob didn't change, the overall calculus did.
I'm not sure how many more ways this can be said to get you to listen. Or you can refuse to bat at straw men - really no skin off my ass either way. It's been made ABUNDANTLY clear what led to dissent here; 'insane' to you or not. It's really not my fault you refuse to understand it.