Below is my plan for the draft and the resulting 53 man roster. I know I'm going to get some people going "BAP, BAP, BAP". I would remind you that this is a plan and not written in stone. If value isn't there, then you adjust your plan. I do think the BAP things gets over done though. I know Vic and O-Zone want you think that your only two choices at every draft pick is a future pro-bowler or a bust, but that's not reality. The projected value difference between 110th and 111th best player is usually extremely minimal if anything. Outside of the first round or two, there are usually going to be several players with virtually the same scouting ratings, and you take the one that fits the need. You also have the option to move down if one of your needs just isn't there. That being said, here's my plan.
1st Round: Quarterback - I know O-zone man is trying to do everything to lower expectations, but you can't win in this league without a quarterback. I know there is no Andrew Luck, but there rarely is. Even if Luck was in this draft, he would go to Houston and not us. You got to find your quarterback. I'm not part of the Henne love fest. He's a backup quality NFL quarterback. I also think waiting until the second round is extremely risky. Every quarterback starved team will have had to pass on our guy twice and Cleveland will have passed three times. We shouldn't pin our future to the quarterback that other teams don't want. Waiting until next year is also a bad idea. First, you set this team back a year since quarterbacks take at least a year to develop. Second, with our free agents and hopefully a good draft, I see us winning more games next year. That means a worse draft position which could easily be outside of the top 10. What's the chance the next Luck falls to us there? The reality is that this is our best chance to get a good quarterback. Let's not pass it up.
2nd Round: Wide Receiver - I'm working on the assumption that Blackmon is not coming back. Even if he does, there's a great chance he relapses. Shorts is good, but more of a number two type receiver. We need a number one receiver on this team to stretch the field.
3rd Round: Center - We failed to get Mack and I have little confidence in Brewster. We desperately need a starting center. The good news is that interior offense linemen often fall in the draft. Meester was a very late second rounder. There's a great chance we can still find a quality starting center in the early 3rd round.
4th Round A: Guard - Similar to above. We desperately need a guard, but fortunately, they often fall in the draft. Guards may drop even slightly more than centers. Nwaneri was a fifth rounder. Johnathan Wade (a starter from our 14-2 team) was also a fifth rounder. Admittedly, Rackley was a third rounder too, but he was also a Gene Smith pick.
4th Round B: Quarterback - Initially a third round quarterback, but we can hope he's good enough to pass Henne in a year or two. Even if not, it's an important position and many think it is a good draft for quarterbacks. I don't like waiting too much later in the draft as quarterback is a high demand position and aren't likely to last until the late rounds.
5th Round A: Linebacker - I would have kept Russell Allen for depth. As it stands, we have virtually no quality depth at this position. I would love to upgrade the starters (other than Poz) too, but we had too many other priorities in the early rounds and aren't likely to find a starter in the late rounds.
5th Round B: Running Back - Todman and Robinson only averaged 3.4 and 3.3 yards per carry respectively last year. Robinson also had fumbling problems. I would like another option at backup running back.
5th Round C: Tight End - Need depth at this position.
6th Round A: Linebacker - Still need more depth.
6th Round B: Offensive Tackle - Could use backup tackle depth in addition to Bradfield.
7th Round: Linebacker - Despite already taking two, this team still needs more depth at this position. I'd also note that the depth chart at most other positions is actually pretty good at this point in the draft. This is one of the few positions where I think a 7th rounder would have a good chance of making the team.
Below is the 53 man roster with projected starters (by mid-season) in bold:
Quarterback
1st Rounder
Henne
4th Rounder
Wide Receiver
2nd Rounder
Shorts
Sanders
Brown
Doss
Running Back
Gerhart
Todman
5th Rounder
Robinson
Tight End
Lewis
Harbor
5th Rounder
Offensive Tackle
Joeckel
Paztor
Bradfield
6th Rounder
Center
3rd Rounder
Brewster
Guard
Beadles
4th Rounder
Rackley
Fullback
Ta'ufo'ou
Defensive End
Clemons
Bryant
Babin
Alualu (Could be a backup at defensive tackle too if there's an injury)
Branch
Davis (Probably a game day inactive, but like his potential as a possible developmental project or depth if injuries occur)
Defensive Tackle
Marks
Miller
Hood
Linebacker
Posluzny
Watson
Hayes
Reynolds
5th Rounder
6th Rounder
7th Rounder
Cornerback
Ball
Gratz
Blackmon
McCray
Harris
Safety
Cyprien
Evans
Guy
Prosninski
Kicker
Scobee
Punter
Anger
Long Snapper
Tinker
I welcome your questions or comments.
Henne should start no matter who we draft. He's a capable veteran and any rookie is a rookie (most likely taking snaps from a fellow rookie).
/derailedthread
Your attempt to differentiate your opinion on BAP from others didn't do anything for me. What you described is exactly what BAP is. It's not overdone. You either understand what giving away value does to your franchise or you don't. Where GMs deviate from this is in situations where they are heavily under the expectation to win now or possibly not have a job next year. In such cases, those GMs might be more apt to take a player that can help them this year but may not be the best player available long term. If you have two players rated roughly the same, a logical GM is going to take the one where he currently has lower quality depth at the position.
Not really a fan of the "take this position in this round" game. I will say this about your rationale regarding the need to draft a QB this year because we'll be drafting later next year. We don't know that to be true so we shouldn't plan based on something we don't know and a QB drafted at the 3rd spot in a given year isn't automatically better than a QB drafted at the 15 spot in another year. A QB class's quality from year to year can range significantly. Some classes yield several franchise type guys or quality starters, others yield none. There's no need to force it for the sake of forcing it. Take the value that's on the board or trade back if you can. For the record, in my unprofessional opinion my top 3 guys would be Clowney, Mack and Watkins or a trade back scenario.
Also, regarding the point about QB needy teams having 2 or 3 chances to pick a QB before we get our 2nd pick. We can always trade up and we have the firepower to do it.
Great post.
I agree with a lot of what you said.
Quote:Also, regarding the point about QB needy teams having 2 or 3 chances to pick a QB before we get our 2nd pick. We can always trade up and we have the firepower to do it.
I'd rather trade down in Rd1 and pick that guy and get some extra picks that way. It's a good draft, we don't need to be trading away any picks.
This is how I feel BUT if they think they can take BAP at 3 and jump back into the first later on and snag Bridgewater/Manziel i'd be all for that.
Quote:This is how I feel BUT if they think they can take BAP at 3 and jump back into the first later on and snag Bridgewater/Manziel i'd be all for that.
I don't think Manziel and Bridgewater are falling low enough for us to actually have a chance at getting one of them in a trade up, realistically.
Quote:I'd rather trade down in Rd1 and pick that guy and get some extra picks that way. It's a good draft, we don't need to be trading away any picks.
I could get down with that if Clowney and Mack are gone. I'd be fine trading back with Watkins on the board because there is supposed to be good WR depth this year and hopefully we can get some help in that department this year.
I think we'll see 4 DTs on the roster, especially in light of Miller's injury history. I would expect that 4th guy to be Abry Jones, that Caldwell has spoken highly of during the open fan town hall discussions.
Quote:I don't think Manziel and Bridgewater are falling low enough for us to actually have a chance at getting one of them in a trade up, realistically.
If they fall past the Vikings/Titans, the next landing spot realisticly would be Cleveland at 26, or possible the Cardinals at 20. We'd have to trade up around the 21-25th spot. Hopefully if we do so, we can manage to trade 2015 picks because that draft wont be this deep
I don't like trading away future draft picks. It's like running up a huge bill on your credit card. You may like it now, but will regret it later. If you can't afford the picks now, you can't afford them later.
To trade up to 21-25, you are looking giving up at least our 3rd rounder and probably our first 4th rounder as well. I had those spots slated as two projected starters. I don't hate the plan as I would love to keep our #3 overall and get a quarterback, but it does come with a cost. It is also risky. The good quarterbacks could be gone by 21 or a team in the 21-25 range may not want to trade with us or ask for something much more in return than I suggested.
I somewhat disagree with the idea of taking these positions in these rounds for the simple fact that some of there's players don't fit the value. A center in the third but the best one in my opinion has a fourth round grade. A fourth round qb after a first round qb; why not one in the sixth. No higher graded defensive player until the 5th round?
Contrary to belief value is much more important than people try make it to be. I agree when you have players of the same grade take the guy that fits the need because you need a tie breaker but always take the value. Otherwise Green Bay doesn't have A-Rod
I would say
1. De/Wr
2. Lb/Leo
3. Qb
4. Wr
4. Leo
5. Wr
5. G
5. C
6. Leo
6. TE
7. G
Yea I don't mind what you did here, but we can go multiple ways IMO. 1st round has to be either OLB or QB. The way I see it, we desperately need 4 positions. QB, OLB, C, G. We also could use WR, TE, and RB. The thought of thinking a rookie QB could be taking snaps from a rookie Center and beside him a rookie Guard, and having a rookie receiver outside is making my skin tingle.
Honestly, I don't think there's anybody who is apart of the Henne love fest.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are the one who doesn't get it. I think many confuse "BAP" with "good scouting". They have nothing to do with each other. If you do a poor job at player evaluations, no strategy will work. That's what overwhelmingly sinks teams. However, no one purposely takes busts. When it happens, it's because the team misevaluated the player. Keep in mind that a team can misevaluate a non-need position just as easily as a need position. There are plenty examples of teams taking the presumed "BAP" only to have the player turn out to be a bust. Then you have neither value nor need. That's worst of all possible worlds.
I also think Vic & O-zone Man try to convince people that "need" means "reach" or "bust". It means no such thing. "Need" is short for "need to win". The goal is to win. If you need something to win, that's pretty darn important. I want to win. If you take someone other than what you need to win, aren't you trying to lose? I like the auto repair shop analogy. If you car won't run because the ignition is broken and the shop tells you that can either buy a new ignition for full price or you can buy tires at 5% off (and you already have virtually new tires), which do you buy? Do you really buy the tires because they are a better "value" and then walk home because you still have a car that doesn't run? Need can be more important than value.
I also think there's a misconception that "need" and "value" have to be two separate things. I want both. Put it this way, isn't "need and value" better than "non-need and value"? Why settle for anything less? I heard the story of an admissions coordinator at one of the top universities in the country who was asked whether he wanted the student got an "A" in a regular class or a "B" in the advanced class. He responded by saying "I want the guy who got the A in the advanced class." Me too. I want both need and value. A draft pick is only a win if it accomplished both. Ok, you might ask "what happens if the two aren't the same at a draft spot?" You are basically asking "what if you are in unwinnable situation"? I'm no Star Trek fan, but there is great wisdom in the second movie that relates to it. How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation? Stop right now and think about it. How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation? I only know of one way. In Star Trek, there's a simulator where it is impossible to win. Captain Kirk is the only one to ever beat it. How did he do it? He went in to the computer and changed the simulation. The answer to our question is that the only way to avoid losing in an unwinnable situation is to not be in that situation in the first place! If you're only choice at a draft position is need or value, then CHANGE YOUR POSITION! As I stated in my original post, I think in most cases outside of the first couple of rounds that you get multiple players with similar values and then you take the one that's a need. If that's not the case and your need isn't there, then TRADE IT. Keep in mind that one man's junk is another man's treasure. In the NFL, every position is going to be a need for some team. Trade your non-need player to the team that needs it and then draft your need where it does equal value. Don't take a non-need, shrug you shoulders, and say "BAP". That's accepting defeat. Good GM's combine need with value.
Now why is purely BAP a bad idea? Let me give some examples. Let's say that the BAP in the late rounds is at a complete non-need. As a result, the BAP doesn't make the team. A BAP player does you no good if he doesn't make the team. However, a player with slightly less value at a need position may make your team and upgrade a roster spot. The "need" helped you improve your team while the "BAP" did not. That's the goal, isn't it?
As for the early rounds, a player's impact isn't determined solely by value but also by playing time. Has a player ever scored a touchdown while sitting on the bench? Let's use the school grading system of 1 to 100 with 100 being the best. Ok, an 81 is better than 80. BAP says that the 81 player should be the pick -- no "if's", "and's", or "but's". However, what if the 81 is at a position where you already have a 95 while the 80 is at a position where you are currently starting a 40? What's the result? The 81 sits the bench. Meanwhile the 80 is a huge upgrade over the 40. Which helps you win more games? Clearly the 80. Once again, the "need" helps your team win more games than the "BAP". The goal is to win games, isn't it?
Don't get me wrong, value is very, very important and will be the main factor in your draft. However, as I stated in my original post, I don't think there's going to be a world of difference between the 110th best projected player and the 111th best player. Vic would want you to think that there were 110 pro-bowlers in the draft and the next 100 would all be busts. That's not realistic. Realistically, if you asked all 32 teams, probably 16 would pick one and 16 would pick the other. If that's the case, why not take the need? At this point, we have no reason to suspect (particularly outside of the first couple of rounds) that the draft will go in any order other than value. As such, need becomes the factor and thus my message with position preference for the draft.
Quote:Henne should start no matter who we draft. He's a capable veteran and any rookie is a rookie (most likely taking snaps from a fellow rookie).
/derailedthread
I'm not a big believer in letting rookie quarterbacks sit on the bench forever. I hear people say that rookie quarterbacks should watch some games. I have this strong feeling that the player has been watching NFL games his entire life. Logically, I just think you learn much more by doing than by watching. I exaggerate a little here, but I'm all for getting the rookie into the lineup as soon as possible. I would note that my projected starters were by
midseason. You have training camp. You have preseason games. If he needs to sit a few more, that's understandable. However, I don't support letting him sit the bench all season. Henne is not the future.
You got to take your lumps sometime so we might as well let him start preparing for the future now. I have no delusions that this is a playoff caliber team. It's about preparing for next year. Do you want to go into next year with a quarterback with little to no experience?
Quote:Honestly, I don't think there's anybody who is apart of the Henne love fest.
I've heard plenty of people say that having a capable quarterback in Henne gives us the flexibility to draft a quarterback in the second round or later or even next year. I couldn't disagree more. He's a backup caliber quarterback and we need to find a way to get him to the bench as soon as possible.
Quote:I will say this about your rationale regarding the need to draft a QB this year because we'll be drafting later next year. We don't know that to be true so we shouldn't plan based on something we don't know and a QB drafted at the 3rd spot in a given year isn't automatically better than a QB drafted at the 15 spot in another year. A QB class's quality from year to year can range significantly. Some classes yield several franchise type guys or quality starters, others yield none.
There's no guarantees, but there is playing the odds. I just hear so many people not wanting to take a quarterback at #3 because he isn't an "Andrew Luck" type prospect. The point is that it won't matter if there are three "Andrew Luck" prospect next year if we are picking outside the top 10. They will all be gone by then. Some think these quarterbacks are risky, but taking one outside of the top 10 will be even more risky. Do players sometimes exceed expectations? Sure, but that's not playing the odds. If you think this team is on the rise, our best chance at getting a good quarterback is right now.
You also ignored my other reason. Quarterbacks take time to develop. You don't expect a quarterback to shine in his rookie year. If we draft one in 2014, we have at least a realistic chance of being a decent team in 2015. I would much rather take a quarterback in 2014 in the first round and a defensive end in 2015 rather than vice versa.
If we wait until 2015 to get a quarterback, we're waiting until at least 2016 to be competitive. What if a good quarterback isn't available in the 2015 draft and have to wait until 2016? We're now waiting until 2017 to be competitive. Not taking a quarterback when you have the chance just because he isn't Andrew Luck could end up holding back this team back for years.
Quote:I'd rather trade down in Rd1 and pick that guy and get some extra picks that way. It's a good draft, we don't need to be trading away any picks.
Theoretically, I would love to trade down if we could still get our quarterback. It just seems very risky to me. There are a bunch of quarterback starved teams drafting right after us in the first round. Our guy could easily be gone. I don't much like the idea of trading down to take some other position. Obviously, I'm big on taking a quarterback in the first round, but if not, this team is still in desperate need of stars. If I was told that I couldn't get a quarterback in round one, my next choice would be either Watkins or Clowney. I wouldn't trade down to take another receiver or defensive end.