jim scheurich
-
Posts
299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by jim scheurich
-
-
Probably decker, not a popular choice but ....
-
18 hours ago, krunk said:
He baited everyone into thinking he cared two cents about understanding BPA drafting and dragged you all into this thread to waste your time with long drawn out explanations. Meanwhile he responds with a couple small sentences and says he will consider no other player in the first round than a lineman. His mind is/was already made up on the issue. He's already seen these same explanations made in hundreds of other threads and even in those threads his conclusion was the same. Everyone should now understand that Jim has his way and we ours. No further explanations needed!
I'm going to reply to this twice. I didn't try to bait or drag anyone into a conversation. Sometimes if I think what people are talking about is kinda boring, ill throw something in there I think people will talk about.
-
3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:
There are a couple schools of thought, but the long and short of it is, some GMs are solely BPA, and others are generally BPA but if two guys are graded close enough, they will take the need.
I'm getting there, I think what I'm thinking isn't that far off base with some of u other guys. probably don't write it down that good.
-
2 hours ago, MPStack said:
Bunch of average Joes IMO. Anderson could be very good, Langford is 30ish and Parry should be a backup. McGill could end up being the best of the group, but they need a NT with some adequate size.
I agree pretty average. I'm not that familiar with 3-4 D. seems like they rely on LBers a lot to stop the run?(off the line)
-
Nose Tackle...just a guess I thought the interior linemen were descent last year.
-
16 hours ago, Superman said:
Yup. I responded because I felt like my position was being misrepresented. Hopefully this discussion at least clarifies why some of us feel that reaching for need is bad draft strategy, but there are some who will never accept it.
I apologize for u thinking I was misrepresenting your position. Not my intent.
-
16 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:
Ive had a glass of whiskey and i think you're off your rocker.
I guess the way I wrote that u probably do think I'm off my rocker. I was just talking fist pick. I know the colts need help just about everywhere.
-
20 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:
Who says needs arent calculated into BPA?
News to me...
-
22 hours ago, Superman said:
What about #48? What about #82?
Why act like the only pick that matters is the first pick?
Id just like to get the best Olineman available. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks along these lines, at least the people I talk to.
-
14 hours ago, krunk said:
He baited everyone into thinking he cared two cents about understanding BPA drafting and dragged you all into this thread to waste your time with long drawn out explanations. Meanwhile he responds with a couple small sentences and says he will consider no other player in the first round than a lineman. His mind is/was already made up on the issue. He's already seen these same explanations made in hundreds of other threads and even in those threads his conclusion was the same. Everyone should now understand that Jim has his way and we ours. No further explanations needed!
I wasn't trying to bait anybody, I just don't get understand the fact that BPA is more important than filling a position of need. maybe I never will...
-
3 hours ago, James said:
You seem too narrow-minded and argumentative to be able to appreciate the opinions of other posters. "I have my opinion".. yeah, we can see that. The constructiveness in your "I am always looking for another opinion" have yet to be seen.
Raise your level of posting, please.
I can appreciate that...Didn't know I was sounding offensive.
-
16 hours ago, Superman said:
That's a bad way to build a roster.
I just meant 1st round. I'm starting to see that the needs of the team come in 2nd to available talent. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it though.
-
51 minutes ago, krunk said:
I dont think you are looking for an explanation in the first place. There's been many explanations given and you keep arguing the same thing. There's really not anything you are trying to understand.
U are correct... I have my opinion... but I will say I am always looking for another opinion.
-
!st pick is optimum. Chanches are they are playing day one. I'm drafting that way only me . I'm drafting oline . I don't care about every thing else. Andrew luck is priorty!!!
-
2 minutes ago, BleedBlu8792 said:
Getting Wilkerson wouldn't stop that from happening, however Luck has some work to do for himself as well in terms of keeping himself healthy. It's not just the OL. Coaching has been upgraded, and an added piece on the OL, mainly Center in my opinion, would do the team wonders.
True... cant argue with that!
-
8 minutes ago, Indy Fan said:
Of course it would be contingent on what our doctors say about his knee. I truthfully don't care he has to sit out the year since this years top end talent drops off considerably. This is a chance to get a top 5 talent if he can recover fully. This years DB class has a lot of developmental guys. The interior offensive line doesn't have a ton of great value at 18. Who knows a top guy could drop to us but won't know til the draft. The EDGE guys have a ton of red flags so if I'm going to gamble I'm going to gamble with Smith.
Good points. Hes a little too risky for me. I'd rather take o-line and try to keep Andrew healthy this year.
-
1 minute ago, BleedBlu8792 said:
Because they are extremely deep across their DL. They took Leonard Williams last year, even when they really didn't need to. Williams played well and they could possibly snag a first for him while not really losing anything. It would be a win/win for the Jets.
I'd be all over him, as I stated earlier, he would immediately be our best defensive player as soon as he signed the contract. Plus he's only 26 years old. People complain about the team not having any star defensive players then go on and complain about what it costs to get a player a star player. Gotta pay to play and in my opinion he would be worth it.
Yeah, agree D needs help. I'd still focus on keeping Luck healthy.
-
Just now, jim scheurich said:
I hope not. Has definite potential, my never be the same though!
may never....
-
10 hours ago, Indy Fan said:
I want Jaylon Smith as my dark horse pick.
I hope not. Has definite potential, my never be the same though!
-
17 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:
Here's what I posted in another thread-
As far as draft for need vs. BPA, if the need guy is pretty close in grade to the BPA guy, go for the need player. But if there is a notable difference in grade, you really must go BPA within the first 3 rounds, IMO. Here is why-
Drafting the best available player over need in at least the draft’s first three rounds leads to an overall higher level of talent for the team roster. Many teams (including Grigson) employ this method, trusting in their scouts and their own scouting capability for playing grade assessment.On the other hand is the “need-based” type draft team. I have quite a few issues with this:
1. You will always pass up more talented players (which your opponent greedily accepts) in the name of short term fixes.
2. Your needs today will not be the same as your needs tomorrow. In a game as violent as professional football, one play, one injury often changes that “needs assessment” drastically.
3. Draft pick misses are magnified, as your focus was so narrow (1-3 positions), you ignored other players with star potential at other positions.
4. You limit your trade options, and you limit your flexibility.
Dorsett wasn't a 'need' last year. But this year he might well have been, but we already have him, so we can move on.
I agree with this...My main point this year is keeping A. Luck healthy. Need to Have to whatever...I just don't like the idea of picking someone at #18 that has no effect on keeping our most important player healthy.
-
Nkemdiche.....too much baggage already
-
49 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:
Depends on whether you are a playoff team and what round it is.
Check Denver and Chicago - 2015, Jim..
The NEEDED offensive linemen...but when they had a chance to get Shane Ray....an OLB..rated very highgly .they traded up and got him to load up on defense.
Did it work? Yes and no. They took what they wanted instead fo what they needed and still won the Super Bowl with a shaky O-line. But Ray showed promise and is still in line to replace DeMarcus Ware eventually
Check the Bears - 2015....They badly needed linebackers and edge rushers (Or anybody) on defense...or offensive linemen. They jumped at the chance to sign a top wide receiver at No. 7 (I forget his name) he was hurt early and never played a down. Bears were non playoff losers..but they'd have been short of the playoffs no matter who they drafted. They were building for the future with a new coach.
Like Cleveland this year.
Both teams took 'best player available' //Putting want ahead of need...
Unless you have no QB (like Denver) I'd always put WANT (translated as: taking the highest rated player) ahead of NEED (translated: filling the largest hole on your roster) in the first round. But you better be right in either case.
If they guys you pick pan out. You'll eventually win.
Appreciate your input... I agree with a lot of what your saying
-
4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:
As an aspiring GM who may take over for a team one day (I'm 28 right now), let me explain it to you in an easy way. There are two major ways to improve your team, Free Agency and the Draft (Trades are a 3rd, but they are much more uncommon in football than other sports). Free Agency is used to get players that are older, more experienced, and have been released from their former teams or have had their contract expire and weren't re-signed. Usually this means that they didn't work out with their former team and could mean they are busts (though money can be an issue as well). You use Free Agency to fill needs for your team, whether these are high profile free agents or under the radar free agents is ultimately up to the GM and the cap situation. The point is you are filling needs and making your team whole.
The draft is a different animal. The point of it is to get the best available talent and make your team that much better overall. You would like BPA to coincide with need, but it doesn't always work like that. There are extreme instances where we would pass up players that are BPA because of position (we wouldn't take Jared Goff at 18 because we have Andrew Luck), but usually if a player is ranked highest on a draft board and is BPA, then he is the pick. If Ezekiel Elliott is a top 10 pick in Grigson's eyes and he falls to 18, he will probably be the pick. I can't stand Elliott, but I can't deny his talent. You try to improve your team over the long run and make them the best you can overall, the strongest 53 man unit possible. Worst thing you can do is take a player you have 10-15 picks ranked below where you are picking. If you want to do that, you trade down and acquire more picks. Hope this helps you.
Thanks for the explanation. I am mainly talking about this years draft. We "need" Oline IMO. There seems to be several linemen that are rated close to our pick. I'm not saying to take someone that is rated far below where we pick at. Hope you are successful on your career journey!
-
6 hours ago, Superman said:
What a bad analogy. You need good players at every position. There are no luxuries on an NFL roster, besides maybe backup QB.
The draft is meant to add talent. When you draft the best players you can, the goal is to end up with a bunch of talented players, and over time, that's what happens if you scout well. Along the way, you can address glaring needs in free agency while your young players develop, if necessary. Every once in a while, you can take a big swing at a potential difference maker, whether in free agency or via trade.
Too many people make the mistake of thinking that simply drafting a player at a position of perceived need automatically fills that need. In reality, drafted players don't all work out. Logically, by drafting a player that your scouting says isn't as good as a player you're passing on, you are reducing the odds of your player being successful. Two years later, you face the reality that your need isn't filled, and you missed out on the better player who is starting for another team at a position at which you now have a need. Again, logic tells you that over time this will lead to a less talented roster overall.
Don't reach for need. Add the best players you can, and over time, your roster will be better.
FA doesn't always work out either T cole isn't the world beater he was supposed to be. Just one example
Colts Work Out Boston College Safety Justin Simmons
in NFL Draft, Scouting, and Free Agent Talk
Posted
Nobodys really talking about a need at safety. I think safety is probably one of the more important positions to improve.