I hated the Dorsett pick at first

[Gavin]

What I'm saying is that if you're on the clock in the 1st round it's better to reach at a position of need than take BPA at a position you're stacked at. It all depends on how a teams draft board is broken down, but I think that's what a few GMs do.

Who knows how high Juwuan James was on their board but you can't tell me the Dolphins didn't make that pick based on need. It's not as simple as taking a B- player over an A+ one. But using my example, If you're on the clock in the first and you already have a young talented RB but your pass defense is awful (assuming this is after FA) do you take the RB who is the highest player on the board, or whoever the highest rated CB or FS on your board is?

I think it's the latter. And although we can't ever know for sure because we'll never know how a team's board looks, I think they're after a few GMs who do this. The Panthers last year with Kelvin Benjamin.

you take the rb or trade down, ya don't take a lesser talent just because of need when your not sure that need will sufficient enough to improve the position that's in need of an upgrade

[BOTT]

you take the rb or trade down, ya don't take a lesser talent just because of need when your not sure that need will sufficient enough to improve the position that's in need of an upgrade

You pass on a RB because of the low positional value.

[Peterk2011]

What I'm saying is that if you're on the clock in the 1st round it's better to reach at a position of need than take BPA at a position you're stacked at. It all depends on how a teams draft board is broken down, but I think that's what a few GMs do.

I believe that is the recipe of fiasco. If you take a lesser talent than what is available, then you deliberately degrade the (believed) level of talent of your roster. If there are more than one players who you think are at the same level, THEN you take the one at a position of need. But if you have a clear BPA, then you have to take that guy, no matter how deep your roster is at that position. Especially in the early rounds.

[Superman]

What I'm saying is that if you're on the clock in the 1st round it's better to reach at a position of need than take BPA at a position you're stacked at. It all depends on how a teams draft board is broken down, but I think that's what a few GMs do.

Who knows how high Juwuan James was on their board but you can't tell me the Dolphins didn't make that pick based on need. It's not as simple as taking a B- player over an A+ one. But using my example, If you're on the clock in the first and you already have a young talented RB but your pass defense is awful (assuming this is after FA) do you take the RB who is the highest player on the board, or whoever the highest rated CB or FS on your board is?

I think it's the latter. And although we can't ever know for sure because we'll never know how a team's board looks, I think they're after a few GMs who do this. The Panthers last year with Kelvin Benjamin.

 

Who was the best player on the board when the Dolphins took James? It's hard to make a case for anyone that they passed on. It's a case of their greatest perceived need lining up with their board, and even if they had similar grades on Dee Ford or Marcus Smith or Kelvin Benjamin or whoever, if they defaulted to James because of his position, that's still drafting with a BPA focus, not a needs focus.

 

That aside, plenty of teams draft based on need. Doesn't mean they should. The most obvious example of Grigson letting need outweigh talent is probably Bjoern Werner. Edge rusher was a bigger need than CB, but Xavier Rhodes was/is the better player. With the benefit of hindsight, what should Grigson have done? Or insert DeAndre Hopkins or Travis Frederick or even Larry Warford... Point is, when you take a lesser talent because of need, you're doing your team a disservice.

 

I disagree about the Panthers. I think Benjamin dropped lower than he should have because of his 40 time. It's easy for me to see him as the best player on the board at that point. I was surprised they didn't trade up for him.

 

Also, I don't take the RB because I would adjust my board for positional value, and while I might have a RB in my top 32, I don't think I'd take him in the first round. I'd adjust my board against QB values also, so I wouldn't have taken Teddy Bridgewater if the Colts still had their #26 pick, even though he was one of the best players on the board. I would likely take BPA who isn't a RB or a QB, regardless of what my greatest perceived need is (unless that need is QB). 

[Jason_]

The most obvious example of Grigson letting need outweigh talent is probably Bjoern Werner. Edge rusher was a bigger need than CB, but Xavier Rhodes was/is the better player. With the benefit of hindsight, what should Grigson have done? Or insert DeAndre Hopkins or Travis Frederick or even Larry Warford... Point is, when you take a lesser talent because of need, you're doing your team a disservice.

 

 

For me, I can honestly say that I have no problem believing that Grigson would have had Werner ranked higher on his board than Rhodes.  Or maybe they had very similar grades on the 2, and in that case they went with the one that filled the bigger need.  But I have no problem believing that they had the players ranked similarly enough that Werner was the better choice at that time.

[BOTT]

I believe that is the recipe of fiasco. If you take a lesser talent than what is available, then you deliberately degrade the (believed) level of talent of your roster. If there are more than one players who you think are at the same level, THEN you take the one at a position of need. But if you have a clear BPA, then you have to take that guy, no matter how deep your roster is at that position. Especially in the early rounds.

meh, it depends on what kind of team you want to build and what positions you value.

[Superman]

For me, I can honestly say that I have no problem believing that Grigson would have had Werner ranked higher on his board than Rhodes.  Or maybe they had very similar grades on the 2, and in that case they went with the one that filled the bigger need.  But I have no problem believing that they had the players ranked similarly enough that Werner was the better choice at that time.

 

Me personally, Werner wasn't as high as Rhodes on my board. Before the draft, Grigson said something to the effect of how he wanted everyone in the room to be excited about the guy they were going to draft. My thinking -- and I posted it here -- was that he wasn't describing Werner. I was always very "meh" on him.

 

So it's through that lens that I look back and assume that Werner wasn't a BPA pick, but obviously my thinking differed from that of the staff. And unless Werner is a lot better this season, I'd go so far as to say that they didn't scout him accurately, and he didn't deserve to be as high on their board as he was. But if so, that's a scouting issue, not a philosophy issue.

 

Either way, the board outweighs need, is all I'm saying.

[Rackeen305]

In terms of overall "team potential", the Dorset pick made since, moving the team forward more in the future with a weapon for Luck to use. Looking at the potential of other players at positions of need, Colts picked up position needs at later rounds, great value at position needs, and get an above average player at WR, and get contact leverage moving forward. The team overall moves forward with the Dorset pick needed value for Luck to work with. Not to mention a special team stud.

Edited June 22, 2015 by 21isSuperman