BPA vs. NEED

[krunk]

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!

[OffensivelyPC]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Another noteworthy point. And each board is set up by humans with feelings and emotions, some of whom are likely influenced by the needs of their respective rosters. It's likely that one GM has a higher grade on a player than he really should because that player scratches an itch. No one can know for sure how good a player will be, but in a perfect world, you would scout honestly, not under the influence of what your team needs.

 

I think Grigson and Pagano made this mistake with Werner. Either that or they just don't know how to scout pass rushers.

I think in a group of 5 people, for instance, this sort of thing comes out. You want it to.

 

And the argument becomes exactly what we are discussing now. You hope better minds prevail and you ultimately make the team better. Thats what we all want. Needs are important. You dont ignore them, but you shouldn't be a slave to it either.

[ColtsBlueFL]

5 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Ive had a glass of whiskey and i think you're off your rocker. 

 

I've had a couple beers... inclined to agree with you...

[James]

13 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

U are correct... I have my opinion... but I will say I am always looking for another opinion.

 

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.

[jim scheurich]

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.

[jim scheurich]

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.

[jim scheurich]

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...

[jim scheurich]

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.

[jim scheurich]

20 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Who says needs arent calculated into BPA?

News to me...

[jim scheurich]

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.

[jim scheurich]

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.

[OffensivelyPC]

43 minutes ago, jim scheurich said:

News to me...

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.

[ColtsBlueFL]

19 hours ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

The trade down is always a dangerous game in my mind. With every team having different needs and different boards, you never quite know where your guy stacks up to all of the other teams. I have always preferred taking a player and then maybe trading up rather then risk losing both players from that tier. At least you know you end up with one of the guys from that tier.  

 

I think I get the point.  If there is 'The Guy' out there you want on the roster, and he isn't quite graded at the draft slot your picking in, then maybe you should just go ahead and get the guy and not take a chance on losing the him because he then doesn't actually make it to the place you traded down to.  You have to be sure when you trade down, you are still going to end up with 'your guy' plus get another choice.  Otherwise why even trade down?

[ColtsBlueFL]

Here's what I learned so far about the process of preparing for and drafting in the NFL.

 

When the college football season starts. The GM of a team will assign scouts to certain parts of the country. They then travel city to city, state to state, attending games and visiting schools to begin scouting and collecting data. Each scout is assigned an area of the country to cover.

 

"The area scout would go out to games and grade guys," former Packers and Chiefs scout (and now agent) Marc Lillibridge told me. "Then you'd have your over-the-top guy, maybe your college director, he'd do the top-100 seniors. Along the way, probably September or October, you get a sense of what juniors are coming out. The coaches of teams you're scouting will even say, 'this guy's coming out, you probably want to look at him,' and we'd understand that."

 

"We had cross-checker scouts (national scouts or the college director) that also made a fall visit to study every draftable prospect." according to Daniel Jeremiah. "In the last week of November, we would send a third scout to visit the players that we had major interest in."

 

"After the college season was over," Jeremiah continued, "each scout was assigned a position to evaluate. During meetings, we would spend time going over each player. All of the fall reports would be read, all-star game evaluations and Combine results would then be discussed. Then the scout that interviewed the player would discuss what he had gleaned from the conversation."  Interviews play big in the evaluation. Coaches, GM's and HC's will interview top targets themselves at combine, pro days, etc.

 

"After all of the information was discussed, our GM would then ask the scouts to compare the player we just went over to other players at his position. Once we found a landing spot for him at his position, we compared him to players across the board that were given a similar grade."  This is how players with similar grades are given hierarchy on a team's board.

 

At this point late, there are two schools of thought.  Some teams will send out their top scouts and watch the last college games and re-rank if necessary.  Other teams as a group will watch 3 games of tape on guys and re-rank of necessary.  Teams using either method have won a Super Bowl within the last few years, so either way can work.

 

Then teams have their 'needs' board and targeted guys, the Big board which ranks all players according to the grade they all agreed to regardless of position, and a Sub board, which is where exceptionally gifted players with red flags (character issues, major injury recovery, frequent substance abuse record, etc...)

At this point I think teams look on their needs board and see who the top guys is on there, as other teams likely have peeled some of them off.  They compare 'that guy' and his grade to their big board.  If the top available player on both  boards is the same player, or very close in grade, then they go with their draft needs board player.  If the player on the big board is very markedly graded higher than on the needs board, they will go with that as all the work done above throughout the year dictates that.  A check of the sub board occurs when such a player may still be on the board, but has fallen down the list significantly.  At some point the risk/reward ratio tips on a favorable side and then they will pull the trigger on the red flag guy, but only if available and fell to a predetermined level in the draft.

[ColtsBlueFL]

18 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

While I agree with your premise I don't like the Dorsett example. First I have never had any doubt he's gonna be a good player but to say we "need" him this year is utterly rediculous.  Teams need 2 talented wide outs.  After that you can have specialists, TE's, and RB's fill the rest of the roles.

 

Here we dont agree.  In these days, there are much more 3 wide sets used  (11 personnel group) than any other, and gaining favor with each year-

 

 

More than half of the offensive plays run in the NFL in 2013 were 3 wideout sets.  It has increased every year.  Having a Franchise QB like Luck makes it more invitiing for m ultiple wide receiver groupings than having a game manager QB and running out 21 or 22 personnel most downs.  Sometimes your 3rd wideout also has the best matchup, and if that 3rd wideout is an elite player, well then...

 

Quote

Also on my board last year Dorsett was no where near BPA last year.  And what I also didn't understand is we had a chance at the highest rated ILB that not only filled a need but could easily be justified as the BPA  (so need would give him a higher grade in your scenario) and we wouldn't be having a discussion of having to take Ragland or Lee in the first this year...

 

These guys and the GM, head coach, and all asst. and position coaches are getting paid by Irsay to scout and develop the players grading.  Their ability to put food on the table rests on their ability to do quality scouting work. Just because you or I feel different lt doesn't mean we are necessarily right as far as progressing the roster.  They have the time, tools, and knowledge to scout better than any blogger or typical message board fan.  They all come together in unison by the end. Their board didn't agree with yours.  I get that.  But they are the hired guns.  Their board trumps yours or mine.

 

T.J. McCreight, Director of College Scouting
Kevin Rogers, Director of Pro Personnel
Jon Shaw, Pro Scout/Special Projects
Todd Vasvari, Asst. Director of College Scouting
Matt Terpening, National Scout
Dave Razzano, Senior Scout
Mike Derice, Area Scout
Byron Lusby, Area Scout
Jamie Moore, Area Scout
Ahmad Russell, Area Scout
Chris McGaha, NFS Scout
Brandon Brown, Scouting Assistant
Brent Caprio, Scouting Assistant
Anthony Foyt IV, Scouting Assistant

 

Quote

Again I agree with your premise but I highly disagree with Dorsett being any resemblance of good drafting strategy as there were multiple players we could've justified as BPA that need should have increased grades.  But of course I also understand everyone scouts differently and Dorsett has traits that are highly wanted but the lack of size for me immediately eliminates the first round prospect option.  Therefore I just don't agree with the pick.

 

In 2001, the Colts had needs for DT and secondary help.  5 wide receivers came off the board in round one when the Colts pick at #30 came up.  Did they get a  monster Defensive tackle?  No.  A killer safety or shutdown cornerback?  No.  They took the 6th wide receiver off the board in round 1 by selecting Reggie Wayne. Reggie was rated the 4th or 5th best WR of the group that year, but easily had the best career of any selected that seaon. Only Santana Moss is within eyesight distance of Wayne for the career.  People were upset about Wayne back then, like people are upset about Dorsett.  Nobody is upset with the Wayne pickup these days. Colts coaches and FO feel the Dorsett story could well play out the same.  We'll know after next season.  The Colts caught me off guard, but after it sunk in a little, I was OK with it. Still am, for now.  Let's see it play out.

 

I still remember the year our receivers all got injured and Manning was tossing footballs to burger joint chefs off the street.  You can never have too much talent, IMO.

[jim scheurich]

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.

[jim scheurich]

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.

[Surge89]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Here we dont agree.  In these days, there are much more 3 wide sets used  (11 personnel group) than any other, and gaining favor with each year-

 

 

More than half of the offensive plays run in the NFL in 2013 were 3 wideout sets.  It has increased every year.  Having a Franchise QB like Luck makes it more invitiing for m ultiple wide receiver groupings than having a game manager QB and running out 21 or 22 personnel most downs.  Sometimes your 3rd wideout also has the best matchup, and if that 3rd wideout is an elite player, well then...

 

 

I understand that but to realistically have that said elite player at 3 isn't a need.  It's a want.  A role player that can get separation or can contest catches, or out jump someone is all that is needed.  That's my only point.  Yes it's great to have 3 great receivers but to say it's a need and to say those statistics prove that isn't exactly true.  As most 3 receiver sets have a 3rd receiver that does one thing well and the rest not so much (the reason why he's a 3rd receiver).

 

Quote

These guys and the GM, head coach, and all asst. and position coaches are getting paid by Irsay to scout and develop the players grading.  Their ability to put food on the table rests on their ability to do quality scouting work. Just because you or I feel different lt doesn't mean we are necessarily right as far as progressing the roster.  They have the time, tools, and knowledge to scout better than any blogger or typical message board fan.  They all come together in unison by the end. Their board didn't agree with yours.  I get that.  But they are the hired guns.  Their board trumps yours or mine.

 

T.J. McCreight, Director of College Scouting
Kevin Rogers, Director of Pro Personnel
Jon Shaw, Pro Scout/Special Projects
Todd Vasvari, Asst. Director of College Scouting
Matt Terpening, National Scout
Dave Razzano, Senior Scout
Mike Derice, Area Scout
Byron Lusby, Area Scout
Jamie Moore, Area Scout
Ahmad Russell, Area Scout
Chris McGaha, NFS Scout
Brandon Brown, Scouting Assistant
Brent Caprio, Scouting Assistant
Anthony Foyt IV, Scouting Assistant

 

I understand that.  That's the reason why I stated that I understand everyone scouts differently.  Please remember this all my opinion but I do love the conversation on it :-).

 

Quote

 

In 2001, the Colts had needs for DT and secondary help.  5 wide receivers came off the board in round one when the Colts pick at #30 came up.  Did they get a  monster Defensive tackle?  No.  A killer safety or shutdown cornerback?  No.  They took the 6th wide receiver off the board in round 1 by selecting Reggie Wayne. Reggie was rated the 4th or 5th best WR of the group that year, but easily had the best career of any selected that seaon. Only Santana Moss is within eyesight distance of Wayne for the career.  People were upset about Wayne back then, like people are upset about Dorsett.  Nobody is upset with the Wayne pickup these days. Colts coaches and FO feel the Dorsett story could well play out the same.  We'll know after next season.  The Colts caught me off guard, but after it sunk in a little, I was OK with it. Still am, for now.  Let's see it play out.

 

I still remember the year our receivers all got injured and Manning was tossing footballs to burger joint chefs off the street.  You can never have too much talent, IMO.

 

I understand this last part.  But I wasn't complaining about reggie  (mainly because I didn't follow closely enough lol) but in this scenario I still would've valued a receiver like reggie higher than I would Dorsett because of physical traits alone.  Let me fully explain my thought process which might give some clarity.  A 1st round receiver needs to be a complete specimen.  He must have size, speed, and ability to catch.  The route running must be at the very least average and due to the rarity combination of size and speed he elevates to the first round.  If you lack one of those tools it's hard to justify a 1st.  I can get a speed receiver in the 3rd example TY which I saw Dorsett as.  That's all.  Nothing against Dorsett nor Grigs I just feel like the pick was not BPA from my view point.  It was from Grigs and he makes all the decisions so that's that.  But as far as showing a good example of draft strategy I feel there are a lot more examples you could pull than Dorsett :-).

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

I understand that but to realistically have that said elite player at 3 isn't a need.  It's a want.  A role player that can get separation or can contest catches, or out jump someone is all that is needed.  That's my only point.  Yes it's great to have 3 great receivers but to say it's a need and to say those statistics prove that isn't exactly true.  As most 3 receiver sets have a 3rd receiver that does one thing well and the rest not so much (the reason why he's a 3rd receiver).

 

I would rather have top flight players at any position any time over a role player there and player of need that doesn't grade nearly as high.  That's just my opinion.

 

3 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

I understand that.  That's the reason why I stated that I understand everyone scouts differently.  Please remember this all my opinion but I do love the conversation on it :-).

 

 

NP

 

3 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

 

I understand this last part.  But I wasn't complaining about reggie  (mainly because I didn't follow closely enough lol) but in this scenario I still would've valued a receiver like reggie higher than I would Dorsett because of physical traits alone.  Let me fully explain my thought process which might give some clarity.  A 1st round receiver needs to be a complete specimen.  He must have size, speed, and ability to catch.  The route running must be at the very least average and due to the rarity combination of size and speed he elevates to the first round.  If you lack one of those tools it's hard to justify a 1st.  I can get a speed receiver in the 3rd example TY which I saw Dorsett as.  That's all.  Nothing against Dorsett nor Grigs I just feel like the pick was not BPA from my view point.  It was from Grigs and he makes all the decisions so that's that.  But as far as showing a good example of draft strategy I feel there are a lot more examples you could pull than Dorsett :-).

 

So you value physical traits as the 'buy in'.  Fair enough. I'll go by production.  Reggie overproduced in the NFL, even as a round one WR.  Grigson and team feel Dorsett's skill set can do that as well, and maybe even more.  It begs the question, why did Grigson value TY Hilton at the end of the third round and trade up to get him (after picking Dwayne Allen ahead of him first) there, but valued Dorsett as a mid first round WR?  There has to be some "there" there.  We will see in time.  But I will always take the better player anytime, any position over role players and filling needs. Always.

[Superman]

12 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

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.

 

What if you can get the best OL available and a potential difference maker at another position? Rather than reaching for a lineman that you have rated in the 30s, take a higher rated player. Then when #48 comes around, your lineman might still be there. If not, then you're taking a lineman that you have rated in the 40s, which isn't that big of a difference from the guy you wanted anyways.

 

In practice, this could mean that instead of drafting Ryan Kelly and Sheldon Day, you could take Sheldon Rankins and Nick Martin. Rankins is way better than Day, while Kelly is only marginally better than Martin. One approach leads to a better roster over time.

 

And of course, everyone's scouting is different. One team might legitimately feel like Kelly is a top 20 guy, in which case they should stick to their board. 

 

12 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

I apologize for u thinking I was misrepresenting your position. Not my intent.

 

I'm not offended, and I'm not overly concerned about whether your comments were directed toward me or anyone else. But your OP drastically misstated what I and others think about draft strategy.

[Superman]

10 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

These guys and the GM, head coach, and all asst. and position coaches are getting paid by Irsay to scout and develop the players grading.  Their ability to put food on the table rests on their ability to do quality scouting work. Just because you or I feel different lt doesn't mean we are necessarily right as far as progressing the roster.  They have the time, tools, and knowledge to scout better than any blogger or typical message board fan.  They all come together in unison by the end. Their board didn't agree with yours.  I get that.  But they are the hired guns.  Their board trumps yours or mine.

 

 

Yup. Sometimes they're wrong (which isn't rare), but it's not for lack of trying. I'll defer to the people who spend their lives on the road and watching film and meeting prospects and talking to their coaches and friends and so on... as opposed to the guy who watches video on the Internet as a hobby. Some fans have an eye for talent and are really smart and whatnot, and I am not being dismissive of anyone's opinion. But the guys who get paid for and evaluated based on their scouting have real stakes to worry about. I might disagree with them, but I don't think that means my 'board' should be more important than anyone else's. 

[Superman]

8 hours ago, Surge89 said:

A 1st round receiver needs to be a complete specimen.  He must have size, speed, and ability to catch.  The route running must be at the very least average and due to the rarity combination of size and speed he elevates to the first round.  If you lack one of those tools it's hard to justify a 1st.

 

The most productive receiver in the league right now is Antonio Brown, and anyone would agree that he's better than any first round receiver over the last three years, no matter the size. He's Dorsett's size, but Dorsett's workout pretty much blows his out of the water. There's nothing wrong with Dorsett as a prospect. His size is a legitimate concern, but it's not something that necessarily makes him not a first rounder.

 

5 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

It begs the question, why did Grigson value TY Hilton at the end of the third round and trade up to get him (after picking Dwayne Allen ahead of him first) there, but valued Dorsett as a mid first round WR?

 

Exactly. The answer is that Dorsett was a better prospect than Hilton. And I say that as a huge Hilton fan, from before the Colts drafted him. He has better workout numbers, and most importantly, he had better college tape against better competition. Hilton has outplayed his draft status, and we don't know what Dorsett will become, but the reasons Hilton was a third while Dorsett was a first are pretty obvious.

[SaturdayAllDay]

15 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I think I get the point.  If there is 'The Guy' out there you want on the roster, and he isn't quite graded at the draft slot your picking in, then maybe you should just go ahead and get the guy and not take a chance on losing the him because he then doesn't actually make it to the place you traded down to.  You have to be sure when you trade down, you are still going to end up with 'your guy' plus get another choice.  Otherwise why even trade down?

That's exactly what I see as the problem. There is no way of being 100% sure, in almost any situation. Without knowing the other teams boards you could be trading below someone who had "your guy"rated even higher.

 

I will say that one of the few instances i would trade down would be If there are more guys you would draft at your current pick then spots to the pick you are trading to.  So if we have four guys we grade the same sitting at 18, we can trade down as far as 21 and still have a guaranteed shot at one or more of them, while picking up another player in the process by trading down and acquiring another pick.  but the odds of us having four players graded the same at our first pick would be slim to none, as this draft appears to have a drop in first round talent at around the 16-24 pick mark, depending on team needs and such. Chances are we have a one clear cut favorite,  or maybe two guys to choose from.

 

But as the draft goes on it gets easier and easier to trade, as the gaps in talent level aren't that big for the most part. So I guess I wouldn't rule out trading down later, although by then the gains aren't really that much either. Multiple 7th round picks won't be what gets us over the hump. 

[Surge89]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The most productive receiver in the league right now is Antonio Brown, and anyone would agree that he's better than any first round receiver over the last three years, no matter the size. He's Dorsett's size, but Dorsett's workout pretty much blows his out of the water. There's nothing wrong with Dorsett as a prospect. His size is a legitimate concern, but it's not something that necessarily makes him not a first

 

I'm as a big of a fan of AB as anyone but there's also a reason he was a 6th round pick.  We are talking draft.  And in the draft you don't have a crystal ball you only have what you can see.  And size plus speed is a rarity which is why the first round exists to get those rare players.  A player like AB who can just simply play the game better than anyone else isn't something you can see very easily especially from a smaller school.  To me your argument is moot and more of a testament to the ability of the Steelers to scout receivers.  (They've had more success stories than just AB and most of them not first rounds). 

 

First round talent is supposed to be just that.  Rare physical talented players that produced.  Again if you see Dorsett as a first round that's fine I was just discussing with CBF another viewpoint. To me Dorsett is more talented than Hilton yes.  I agree I just don't agree he's a first round grade.  High 2nd yes but his size works against him at his position in draft stock.  Again this is draft stock not an indictment on his NFL career.  I think he actually might be pretty successful if Luck retains his previous form.  

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Surge89 said:

I'm as a big of a fan of AB as anyone but there's also a reason he was a 6th round pick.  We are talking draft.  And in the draft you don't have a crystal ball you only have what you can see.

 

The bolded is the reason he was a 6th rounder. If teams could foretell the future, he would have been a first rounder, despite his size. Odell Beckham is an inch taller; Tavon Austin went 8th. Teams don't have any problem drafting smaller receivers in the first round, as long as the talent supports it.

 

Quote

And size plus speed is a rarity which is why the first round exists to get those rare players.

 

And those so-called rare size plus speed guys are available every year, in plenty of rounds, and many of them don't live up to expectations. Everybody wants the Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones type of receiver, but just being big and fast isn't all it takes. 

 

Your opinion is fine, I just disagree with the idea that if a receiver isn't 6'2" that you shouldn't take him in the first round. Especially at the end of the first round. If you take a smaller guy in the top ten, that's a different story. If you scout a guy and feel like he's one of the 20 best players in the draft, then it doesn't matter how tall he is. That kind of thinking is why Bryan Anger was drafted before Russell Wilson. Measurables matter, but scouts have to trust their eyes. I believe that the Colts could have made a better pick than Dorsett, but that's not because of his height.

[Surge89]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

Your opinion is fine, I just disagree with the idea that if a receiver isn't 6'2" that you shouldn't take him in the first round. Especially at the end of the first round. If you take a smaller guy in the top ten, that's a different story. If you scout a guy and feel like he's one of the 20 best players in the draft, then it doesn't matter how tall he is. That kind of thinking is why Bryan Anger was drafted before Russell Wilson. Measurables matter, but scouts have to trust their eyes. I believe that the Colts could have made a better pick than Dorsett, but that's not because of his height.

 

I agree with all of this.

 

When we were talking about Dorsett it was in general because he was being referenced to as a good example of draft strat.  I understand their are other factors into a receiver being taken in the first such as other position depth, receiver depth, production against quality, route running.  Just in this scenario for me to even consider Dorsett in the first with what he had shown he needed to be a 6'3 guy with same 40.

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

I agree with all of this.

 

When we were talking about Dorsett it was in general because he was being referenced to as a good example of draft strat.  I understand their are other factors into a receiver being taken in the first such as other position depth, receiver depth, production against quality, route running.  Just in this scenario for me to even consider Dorsett in the first with what he had shown he needed to be a 6'3 guy with same 40.

Antonio Brown, Odell Beckham Jr., Jarvis Laundry, Emmanuel Sanders, TY Hilton, Julian Edelman, Steve Smith Sr., Desean Jackson- all under 6 feet tall. HOFers under 6 feet- Lance Allworth, Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison, Charlie Jointer, Steve Largent and Lynn Swan are just a few. Sorry, your scenario don't hold water.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Antonio Brown, Odell Beckham Jr., Jarvis Laundry, Emmanuel Sanders, TY Hilton, Julian Edelman, Steve Smith Sr., Desean Jackson- all under 6 feet tall. HOFers under 6 feet- Lance Allworth, Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison, Charlie Jointer, Steve Largent and Lynn Swan are just a few. Sorry, your scenario don't hold water.

 

Some evaluators of talent prefer their WR's on the tall side.     Some don't care as much.

 

Again,  it's the ultimate beauty contest and no one sees the same thing the same way.....

 

[jim scheurich]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 0:27 AM, Superman said:

 

What if you can get the best OL available and a potential difference maker at another position? Rather than reaching for a lineman that you have rated in the 30s, take a higher rated player. Then when #48 comes around, your lineman might still be there. If not, then you're taking a lineman that you have rated in the 40s, which isn't that big of a difference from the guy you wanted anyways.

 

In practice, this could mean that instead of drafting Ryan Kelly and Sheldon Day, you could take Sheldon Rankins and Nick Martin. Rankins is way better than Day, while Kelly is only marginally better than Martin. One approach leads to a better roster over time.

 

And of course, everyone's scouting is different. One team might legitimately feel like Kelly is a top 20 guy, in which case they should stick to their board. 

 

 

I'm not offended, and I'm not overly concerned about whether your comments were directed toward me or anyone else. But your OP drastically misstated what I and others think about draft strategy.

Yeah, my analogy was meant to be an eye opener...

[OffensivelyPC]

On 4/2/2016 at 4:01 AM, Superman said:

 

Don't reach for need. Add the best players you can, and over time, your roster will be better.

Or...draft need and make everyone happy.

 

Truly yours,

The Fans

 

(Am I doing it right?)