Dear fellow Standard players. Not every player experimenting with warrior builds is this much of a dunning-kruger.
Last friday I played black/white warriors. My finish was a painful 3-1, due to missing an opportunity to press for damage and potentially hit lethal the following turn, then getting an unworkable draw on game 2. My collective record with the deck is 20-3. It's a fun deck that has surprising power, but its options are inherently limited in an environment that caters to three color decks and their 3-4 mana creatures. >In your area, how long is it after a rotation before people abandon brewing for netdecking?
This is the kind of attitude that indicates a lack of understanding about how a metagame gets developed. In the information trickle-down, good players are going to be about a week ahead of the internet. A large set only has 200 or so cards, and most of those aren't even for constructed. A handful of cards isn't a fucking millennium puzzle. Sure, some cards go under the radar or get overhyped, but for the most part its pretty obvious which cards are worth playing. The format then evolves from there as players need to find ways to beat the more popular strategies.
There are a lot of little things that go into why most brews are worse than real decks, and most of those come from the deck builder not being able to determine if a card is constructed-worthy or not.
Besides, most of deck building is not choosing an entirely new strategy. It is actually determining the numbers of cards in your list, choosing what to do with the flexible slots in your deck, and boarding with your complete 75. Two players can "net-deck," but one can end up with a scrubby list and the other can end up with a list that has better evolved since last week. Most decisions are really subtle and recognizing the right decision without copying a list or template can be difficult for players that haven't done their research or lack the benefit of testing.