positions of need

[21isSuperman]

Vincent Brown likely won't be here. Allen and Fleener are free agents after this year, as is Hilton. Andre Johnson should be the real deal, but every other vet free agent we've signed has been underwhelming and ultimately, one and done. Carter is a flier. We don't know what the roster mechanics will bring come draft time next year. 

 

To me, it's simple. The draft is entirely about adding the best players available. It's not for targeting and filling needs; that's what free agency is for. And while there are adjustments to be made based on positional values and draft position and whatnot, nine times out of ten, you'll win taking the best player. You never go broke taking a profit. 

I agree with your assessment of all the players, but the hypothetical was under the same scenario as this year, with the only difference being having Dorsett on the team.

 

I disagree about taking BPA.  I think you need to take several things into consideration, including how you've ranked them, how they fill needs on your team, how strong the draft class is for various positions (eg. I would have been very happy taking Lockett later instead of Dorsett in the first), how guys fit your offensive and defensive systems, etc.  I don't disregard BPA, but I don't take it as the absolute determinant.

 

If you're running a cover 2 defense, do you draft Revis as first rounder if he's the best available player?  We saw how poorly he fit into a cover 2 in Tampa.  If you have Dallas' offensive line, do you take a C in the first round, despite having All-Pro caliber players along your interior OL?

 

If we assume teams go BPA, then that can lead to things like Jacksonville taking a punter ahead of Russell Wilson.  I think if you're too strict in your principles, then it could set you up for failure.  Let's go back to that hypothetical scenario.  Let's assume everything is the exact same as this year when it comes to the 2016 draft (and you can't trade your pick, you have to make a selection).  The only difference is that we have Dorsett on the roster.  You would take another receiver in the first round ahead of someone who could help the defense, simply because he's the BPA?  He might not see a lot of field time given your crowded group of pass catchers, but he's BPA.  I understand that one may always want to add talent to their team, but I'd rather take talent and fill an immediate need than talent and a lesser need.

 

Another hypothetical: You're John Schneider of the Seattle Seahawks.  On the board right now, there is a safety as your top ranked prospect (ranked 15th overall) and a wide receiver as one of your higher ranked prospects as well (ranked 26th overall) and you're picking at 30.  You have several safeties on your roster, and you have 2 safeties who you've recently given a lot of money to.  Your starting safeties have also been able to stay relatively healthy during their young careers thus far.  Do you take a safety and have him sit on your bench as a first round pick, or do you take the receiver?

 

Myself, I'd take the receiver.  The safety is the BPA, but the receiver is highly ranked as well and fills an immediate need.  You can take the safety, but he might be playing more special teams than defensive snaps, and I'd prefer to see more production out of my first round pick.  It's not a perfectly analogous hypothetical scenario, but I think it makes the point

[Narcosys]

I agree with your assessment of all the players, but the hypothetical was under the same scenario as this year, with the only difference being having Dorsett on the team.

I disagree about taking BPA. I think you need to take several things into consideration, including how you've ranked them, how they fill needs on your team, how strong the draft class is for various positions (eg. I would have been very happy taking Lockett later instead of Dorsett in the first), how guys fit your offensive and defensive systems, etc. I don't disregard BPA, but I don't take it as the absolute determinant.

If you're running a cover 2 defense, do you draft Revis as first rounder if he's the best available player? We saw how poorly he fit into a cover 2 in Tampa. If you have Dallas' offensive line, do you take a C in the first round, despite having All-Pro caliber players along your interior OL?

If we assume teams go BPA, then that can lead to things like Jacksonville taking a punter ahead of Russell Wilson. I think if you're too strict in your principles, then it could set you up for failure. Let's go back to that hypothetical scenario. Let's assume everything is the exact same as this year when it comes to the 2016 draft (and you can't trade your pick, you have to make a selection). The only difference is that we have Dorsett on the roster. You would take another receiver in the first round ahead of someone who could help the defense, simply because he's the BPA? He might not see a lot of field time given your crowded group of pass catchers, but he's BPA. I understand that one may always want to add talent to their team, but I'd rather take talent and fill an immediate need than talent and a lesser need.

Another hypothetical: You're John Schneider of the Seattle Seahawks. On the board right now, there is a safety as your top ranked prospect (ranked 15th overall) and a wide receiver as one of your higher ranked prospects as well (ranked 26th overall) and you're picking at 30. You have several safeties on your roster, and you have 2 safeties who you've recently given a lot of money to. Your starting safeties have also been able to stay relatively healthy during their young careers thus far. Do you take a safety and have him sit on your bench as a first round pick, or do you take the receiver?

Myself, I'd take the receiver. The safety is the BPA, but the receiver is highly ranked as well and fills an immediate need. You can take the safety, but he might be playing more special teams than defensive snaps, and I'd prefer to see more production out of my first round pick. It's not a perfectly analogous hypothetical scenario, but I think it makes the point

Superman v Superman... epic.

[Superman]

I agree with your assessment of all the players, but the hypothetical was under the same scenario as this year, with the only difference being having Dorsett on the team.

 

I disagree about taking BPA.  I think you need to take several things into consideration, including how you've ranked them, how they fill needs on your team, how strong the draft class is for various positions (eg. I would have been very happy taking Lockett later instead of Dorsett in the first), how guys fit your offensive and defensive systems, etc.  I don't disregard BPA, but I don't take it as the absolute determinant.

 

If you're running a cover 2 defense, do you draft Revis as first rounder if he's the best available player?  We saw how poorly he fit into a cover 2 in Tampa.  If you have Dallas' offensive line, do you take a C in the first round, despite having All-Pro caliber players along your interior OL?

 

If we assume teams go BPA, then that can lead to things like Jacksonville taking a punter ahead of Russell Wilson.  I think if you're too strict in your principles, then it could set you up for failure.  Let's go back to that hypothetical scenario.  Let's assume everything is the exact same as this year when it comes to the 2016 draft (and you can't trade your pick, you have to make a selection).  The only difference is that we have Dorsett on the roster.  You would take another receiver in the first round ahead of someone who could help the defense, simply because he's the BPA?  He might not see a lot of field time given your crowded group of pass catchers, but he's BPA.  I understand that one may always want to add talent to their team, but I'd rather take talent and fill an immediate need than talent and a lesser need.

 

Another hypothetical: You're John Schneider of the Seattle Seahawks.  On the board right now, there is a safety as your top ranked prospect (ranked 15th overall) and a wide receiver as one of your higher ranked prospects as well (ranked 26th overall) and you're picking at 30.  You have several safeties on your roster, and you have 2 safeties who you've recently given a lot of money to.  Your starting safeties have also been able to stay relatively healthy during their young careers thus far.  Do you take a safety and have him sit on your bench as a first round pick, or do you take the receiver?

 

Myself, I'd take the receiver.  The safety is the BPA, but the receiver is highly ranked as well and fills an immediate need.  You can take the safety, but he might be playing more special teams than defensive snaps, and I'd prefer to see more production out of my first round pick.  It's not a perfectly analogous hypothetical scenario, but I think it makes the point

 

Revis was fine in a Cover 2. It was just a waste of his talent, and they had a bad pass rush. I get your point, but that has nothing to do with the draft. And your draft evaluation should adjust for players that fit in your scheme.

 

You're coming up with hypotheticals to shoehorn a non-BPA decision, but teams trade up and down all the time. More likely than the Cowboys staying at their spot and taking an interior lineman, they'd trade up and take a player they love, or trade down and stick to their board. Same with the Seahawks and a safety. They determined, during their scouting and evaluations, that they'd rather have Jimmy Graham than their #31 pick, and traded it. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

 

You're also pretending that a team can't adjust their board for positional values. The Jags taking a punter in the third round is just stupid, setting aside passing on Russell Wilson. The Raiders taking Janikowski in the first round is stupider. You don't take punters or kickers that high, no matter how good you think they are. If your scouting and draft prep process leaves you with a teams player as a top 150 player on your board (and I'm being generous), then your scouting and draft prep process is bad.

 

Same thing with RBs in the first round, with almost no exceptions, IMO.

 

This really isn't that crazy of a concept, nor is the old "but what if" thing people do when arguing against BPA. When you're setting up your board, based on your team philosophy and your scouting and all that, you take all this stuff into consideration. You counterbalance scouting against scheme, positional values against perceived player rankings from other teams, etc., etc. 

 

You draft talent, you fill needs with smart free agent signings, and you re-sign your best players as best you can, and everything else works out. I'd rather see my team try to manipulate the board and stockpile picks to increase the odds of hitting on some players than to reach past better players for other players at positions of perceived need.

[21isSuperman]

Revis was fine in a Cover 2. It was just a waste of his talent, and they had a bad pass rush. I get your point, but that has nothing to do with the draft. And your draft evaluation should adjust for players that fit in your scheme.

 

You're coming up with hypotheticals to shoehorn a non-BPA decision, but teams trade up and down all the time. More likely than the Cowboys staying at their spot and taking an interior lineman, they'd trade up and take a player they love, or trade down and stick to their board. Same with the Seahawks and a safety. They determined, during their scouting and evaluations, that they'd rather have Jimmy Graham than their #31 pick, and traded it. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum.

 

You're also pretending that a team can't adjust their board for positional values. The Jags taking a punter in the third round is just stupid, setting aside passing on Russell Wilson. The Raiders taking Janikowski in the first round is stupider. You don't take punters or kickers that high, no matter how good you think they are. If your scouting and draft prep process leaves you with a teams player as a top 150 player on your board (and I'm being generous), then your scouting and draft prep process is bad.

 

Same thing with RBs in the first round, with almost no exceptions, IMO.

 

This really isn't that crazy of a concept, nor is the old "but what if" thing people do when arguing against BPA. When you're setting up your board, based on your team philosophy and your scouting and all that, you take all this stuff into consideration. You counterbalance scouting against scheme, positional values against perceived player rankings from other teams, etc., etc. 

 

You draft talent, you fill needs with smart free agent signings, and you re-sign your best players as best you can, and everything else works out. I'd rather see my team try to manipulate the board and stockpile picks to increase the odds of hitting on some players than to reach past better players for other players at positions of perceived need.

I certainly understand your point.  BPA can be very helpful at times (just look at the Packers and Rodgers).  I just think sticking too strictly to it and not being flexible in your approach can be detrimental.  I'm not saying teams should completely disregard all their scouting and player ranking when the draft comes, but I think there should be some room for flexibility

[CoachLite]

Nice discussion! BPA isn't as simple as some try to make it. Looking at a moving 3 year player personnel planning horizon, including possible trades for very good, but expensive, players, what is "best" does involve need requirements.

 

Looking only at immediate needs can get you fired in a couple of years.

[Gavin]

Grigson has the right approach...Pretty much sums it up in my opinion

[Deano1818]

Superman v Superman... epic.

Batman wins....

[Superman]

I certainly understand your point.  BPA can be very helpful at times (just look at the Packers and Rodgers).  I just think sticking too strictly to it and not being flexible in your approach can be detrimental.  I'm not saying teams should completely disregard all their scouting and player ranking when the draft comes, but I think there should be some room for flexibility

 

I agree, flexibility is what leads to Grigson trading down at the end of the 2nd. But to me, flexibility doesn't mean you reach for need when there are better players still on the board. 

[LockeDown]

I'm going to state the obvious.  It all depends on Luck.  Luck has been winning regardless of the team that surrounds him.  He has lost a top pass rusher(Mathis), his go-to WR (Wayne), his top RBs (Bradshaw/Vick) and he still won.  If he progresses this year, to the same degree he's been progressing, he can take us to the Super Bowl.  If we stay healthy with what we've added, I can see why Colts fans should be optimistic.  Everyone wants to take the pressure off Luck and I am one of them, but he can still win if it doesn't work out that way. 

[Chucklez]

I'm going to state the obvious.  It all depends on Luck.  Luck has been winning regardless of the team that surrounds him.  He has lost a top pass rusher(Mathis), his go-to WR (Wayne), his top RBs (Bradshaw/Vick) and he still won.  If he progresses this year, to the same degree he's been progressing, he can take us to the Super Bowl.  If we stay healthy with what we've added, I can see why Colts fans should be optimistic.  Everyone wants to take the pressure off Luck and I am one of them, but he can still win if it doesn't work out that way. 

Give Luck a defense like the Seahawks' that are consistent and he'll win more SB's than Tom Brady. Even if it was at the cost of our plethora of offensive weapons, Luck can make anyone look good so long as they can catch the ball thrown to them (DHB  ) and not run into the backs of their own OL (TR  ).

[tpry1965]

Give Luck a defense like the Seahawks' that are consistent and he'll win more SB's than Tom Brady. Even if it was at the cost of our plethora of offensive weapons, Luck can make anyone look good so long as they can catch the ball thrown to them (DHB  ) and not run into the backs of their own OL (TR  ).

Colts make it further and further each year because their offense around Luck gets better and better each year (or maybe Luck is just the one getting better and better) …

Either way…. Offense + Time = better post season… last year they made it to the AFC championship sooooo… according to the equation, they just need to beef up the offense to make it to the super bowl. I don’t mean to over simplify it but honestly, that’s what its about… and it is kinda simple. (not saying I agree with it but if/when the colts go to the show, ill be a believer.)

 

#thebestdefenseisagoodoffense

[Deano1818]

We need to be able to have a team that can win in the cold and slop, that normally comes in January and February

 

Try a racing bike on an advanced mountain terrain.........  the bike that was amazingly fast on clean pavement, now cant function

 

We saw this concept with Peyton, in cold weather, we normally didnt win

 

 

I think we have improved, but........... can we win in NE in January?    I dont know

 

I do think we are better than we were before.......