Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Some people get it.  Others just can't grasp it.  There is no 100% black and white BAP GM in the NFL.  I'm sure some adhere to it more then others, but need plays a role for all GM's.

Exactly.

 

Value does too, though BAP guys will never admit need drafters consider value.

 

It's as if they believe that needs guys simply draw names out of a hat.

 

How did TC hit on as many first rounders as he did if he didn't consider the ability of the players in question?

 

Boselli?  Hardy?  Taylor, Darius, Henderson Stroud?

 

That's a lot of talent over 8 years worth of first round picks.

Quote:Well, in recent times they have drafted heavy in the OL.


They took Pouncey a few years back, and DeCastro and Adams in 2012.

That's most recently and we could argue that all of those players were the BAP at those picks. What about the 6-8 years prior?

Quote:Done with the hijack?  Or need to get beaten down any more like a rented mule about being wrong again, again?

I think you have a secret love affair with TMD. Its like a school girl who throws dirt on the boy she actually likes.

Quote:That's most recently and we could argue that all of those players were the BAP at those picks. What about the 6-8 years prior?

Can we argue that?

 

DeCastro and Adams have been disappointments.  You could argue Alshon Jeffery was a better player than DeCastro.  You could also argue Mercilus was better than DeCastro, and Dewayne Allen, TJ Graham, Russell Wilson, and Nick Foles were better players than Adams.

 

In 2011, you could  argue Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, and kyle Rudolph were better than Cameron Hayward.  In fact, those examples bolster the argument that the Steelers are not the pure BAP team you guys suggest.  Oklahomie has argued that QBs are more valuable than any other position, and that whenever you have the chance to take one, irrespective of need, you should do so.  There, even though the Steelers had Roethlisberger, you had two QBs on the board capable of leading teams to the playoffs when they took Cameron Heyward. 

 

Did the Steelers draft either of those QBs? 

 

No.

 

They took Heyward.  Heyward didn't become a starter until his 3rd year, and for his career, he has mustered 7.5 sacks.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pl...ywCa01.htm

 

Why would they take Heyward in bottom of the first round over two QBs who have subsequently proven able to win in the league?

 

For that matter, why would they take DeCastro AND Adams over Russell Wilson and Nick Foles?

 

I cna come up with one of two possible reasons:

 

1)  They didn't need to spend a first round (or second round pick) on a QB who would ride the pines behind a still in his prime Ben Roethlisberger who has QBed the Steelers to two Super Bowl championships and three Super Bowl appearances;

 

2)  They actually had Heyward rated as BAP on their board and allowed superior players at more important positions to go to competitors, which isn't supposed to happen according to BAP proponents.

 

In 2010, the Steelers took Emmanuel Sanders in the draft, over guys like Eric Decker, Navorro Bowman and Daniel Graham.

 

Can anyone honestly say Sanders is better than ANY of those guys?!?  Maybe you could argue he is Decker's equal as a receiver, but there is NO WAY anyone can argue Sanders is a better player than either Bowman or Graham.

 

So again, if the Steelers are a BAP team, and BAP precludes teams from taking inferior players and allowing superior players to go to the competetion, how does that happen?

 

In 2009, the Steelers took DT Ziggy Hood in the first round.  Superior players that came off the board after Hood include Jairus Byrd, James Laurinaitis, Max Unger and LeSean McCoy.  How did that happen? 

Quote:Exactly.

 

Value does too, though BAP guys will never admit need drafters consider value.

 

It's as if they believe that needs guys simply draw names out of a hat.

 

How did TC hit on as many first rounders as he did if he didn't consider the ability of the players in question?

 

Boselli?  Hardy?  Taylor, Darius, Henderson Stroud?

 

That's a lot of talent over 8 years worth of first round picks.

 


I don't think a single person has said need trumps all, but there are several that say 'value' trumps all. Its quite bizarre.

Quote:I don't think a single person has said need trumps all, but there are several that say 'value' trumps all. Its quite bizarre.

 

Put me in the "value" category. I'm as close to the draft philosophy of "value trumps all" as you can be. .....and in the rare exception that you are simply just too stacked at one particular position to select said "value" player at your pick, then you trade back and recoup value or if its later in the draft maybe even try to gain pick(s) in future drafts. 

Quote:Put me in the "value" category. I'm as close to the draft philosophy of "value trumps all" as you can be. .....and in the rare exception that you are simply just too stacked at one particular position to select said "value" player at your pick, then you trade back and recoup value or if its later in the draft maybe even try to gain pick(s) in future drafts. 

 

So given the choice between Clowney and Bridgewater, who would you take?

 

Let's assume a scenario where there is no disparate value amongst the available picks, such that no one player stands out as head and shoulders above the rest.  All have equal value.  Or let's assume the available talent represents poor value for the draft slot (i.e. you pick in the top 5 in a draft without true top 5 caliber talent-i.e. 1991).

 

What guides your decision then?

 

Under the last scenario, a trade down is unlikely because nobody would want to trade up into your spot.

 

What guides your decision then?

Quote:So given the choice between Clowney and Bridgewater, who would you take?

 

I'd still go Bridgewater there. Its close. But I just feel that you get more value from a top QB than you do a top DE. 

Quote:I'd still go Bridgewater there. Its close. But I just feel that you get more value from a top QB than you do a top DE. 

 

TMD...I have edited my post to include some additional questions.

 

As to your answer here, you think Bridgewater and Clowney are equal as prospects in terms of pure ability, but that the position tips the scale in Bridgewater's favor?

Quote:Can we argue that?

 

DeCastro and Adams have been disappointments.  You could argue Alshon Jeffery was a better player than DeCastro.  You could also argue Mercilus was better than DeCastro, and Dewayne Allen, TJ Graham, Russell Wilson, and Nick Foles were better players than Adams.

 

In 2011, you could  argue Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, and kyle Rudolph were better than Cameron Hayward.  In fact, those examples bolster the argument that the Steelers are not the pure BAP team you guys suggest.  Oklahomie has argued that QBs are more valuable than any other position, and that whenever you have the chance to take one, irrespective of need, you should do so.  There, even though the Steelers had Roethlisberger, you had two QBs on the board capable of leading teams to the playoffs when they took Cameron Heyward. 

 

Did the Steelers draft either of those QBs? 

 

No.

 

They took Heyward.  Heyward didn't become a starter until his 3rd year, and for his career, he has mustered 7.5 sacks.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pl...ywCa01.htm

 

Why would they take Heyward in bottom of the first round over two QBs who have subsequently proven able to win in the league?

 

For that matter, why would they take DeCastro AND Adams over Russell Wilson and Nick Foles?

 

 

 

Drafting a first round player and sitting him behind two starters is more akin to BAP than needs drafting. The DE's in Dick LeBeau's scheme are not pass rushers, so 7.5 sacks is gravy for them. Your argument is based on the false assumption that QB's are more important than any other position.

 

Wilson and Foles were drafted in the 3rd round, those two were drafted in one and two. Reaching for one of those QBS in round 1 or 2 would have been a reach, not BAP.

Quote:I don't think a single person has said need trumps all, but there are several that say 'value' trumps all. Its quite bizarre.

 

If that's all you understand about it, then you don't understand it at all.

Quote:So given the choice between Clowney and Bridgewater, who would you take?

 

Let's assume a scenario where there is no disparate value amongst the available picks, such that no one player stands out as head and shoulders above the rest.  All have equal value.  Or let's assume the available talent represents poor value for the draft slot (i.e. you pick in the top 5 in a draft without true top 5 caliber talent-i.e. 1991).

 

What guides your decision then?

 

Under the last scenario, a trade down is unlikely because nobody would want to trade up into your spot.

 

What guides your decision then?

 

Whoever has the cooler sounding name.

 

I think other philosophy components would come into consideration. Do you value speed, size, position adaptability, durability? Whoever has the best quality you look for is the one you'd go with. Need isn't a quality.

Quote:Drafting a first round player and sitting him behind two starters is more akin to BAP than needs drafting. The DE's in Dick LeBeau's scheme are not pass rushers, so 7.5 sacks is gravy for them. Your argument is based on the false assumption that QB's are more important than any other position.

 

Wilson and Foles were drafted in the 3rd round, those two were drafted in one and two. Reaching for one of those QBS in round 1 or 2 would have been a reach, not BAP.

 

Well, it's not as if the Steelers didn't have needs along the DL when Heyward was picked. 

 

Brett Kiesel was 33 the year they added Heyward, and Casey hampton was 31.  They needed youth along the DL.

 

My argument was based upon the argument Oklahomie made.

 

Regarding your closing point, do you really think Dalton Or Kaepernick (taken picks 35 and 36 respectively in 2011) represents reaches from the 31st overall pick where heyward was chosen?  If so, why?  What made them reaches at 31 but not at 35 or 36 where they were taken?

 

Regarding whether Wilson or Foles as 3rd round picks represents a reach over Adams, the second round pick, do you deny at this point that at least Russell Wilson is a better player than Adams (irrespective of position)?

 

If not, whether Wilson in the second round might have been considered a reach at the time is immaterial.  The fact is, BAP is supposed to distinguish the true value from true reaches.  If it can't, what makes it any different than needs drafting?

Quote:So given the choice between Clowney and Bridgewater, who would you take?

 

Let's assume a scenario where there is no disparate value amongst the available picks, such that no one player stands out as head and shoulders above the rest.  All have equal value.  Or let's assume the available talent represents poor value for the draft slot (i.e. you pick in the top 5 in a draft without true top 5 caliber talent-i.e. 1991).

 

What guides your decision then?

 

Under the last scenario, a trade down is unlikely because nobody would want to trade up into your spot.

 

What guides your decision then?

 

If players are of equal perceived value and a trade can't be completed (which I reject because as a GM you should always be planning several possible moves ahead) I'd select the more premium position over non premium position, especially higher in the draft. 

 

If at that point we're still talking similar players/ same positions, etc, etc (unlikely) then its pretty cut and dry - take the player that you feel will be a better player, encompassing variables such as talent/ scheme/ character etc. 

 

Quote:TMD...I have edited my post to include some additional questions.

 

As to your answer here, you think Bridgewater and Clowney are equal as prospects in terms of pure ability, but that the position tips the scale in Bridgewater's favor?

 

I think Bridgewater is or will be slightly better at his position than Clowney will be at his; I believe that Bridgewater will be more productive at his position than Clowney will be at his. 

Quote: 

 

So again, if the Steelers are a BAP team, and BAP precludes teams from taking inferior players and allowing superior players to go to the competetion, how does that happen?

 

In 2009, the Steelers took DT Ziggy Hood in the first round.  Superior players that came off the board after Hood include Jairus Byrd, James Laurinaitis, Max Unger and LeSean McCoy.  How did that happen? 

 

 

All of the points you made in your extended post are correct.  The Steelers are not a BAP team.  They draft for needs.  Hood and Heyward were drafted to fill the aging Dline need.  Le'veon Bell (RB) replaced Mendenhall.   This year WR or DB -- need someone to compliment Antonio Brown at WR .... and Ike Taylor (DB) is getting old.

Quote:Can we argue that?

 

DeCastro and Adams have been disappointments.  You could argue Alshon Jeffery was a better player than DeCastro.  You could also argue Mercilus was better than DeCastro, and Dewayne Allen, TJ Graham, Russell Wilson, and Nick Foles were better players than Adams.

 

In 2011, you could  argue Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, and kyle Rudolph were better than Cameron Hayward.  In fact, those examples bolster the argument that the Steelers are not the pure BAP team you guys suggest.  Oklahomie has argued that QBs are more valuable than any other position, and that whenever you have the chance to take one, irrespective of need, you should do so.  There, even though the Steelers had Roethlisberger, you had two QBs on the board capable of leading teams to the playoffs when they took Cameron Heyward. 

 

Did the Steelers draft either of those QBs? 

 

No.

 

They took Heyward.  Heyward didn't become a starter until his 3rd year, and for his career, he has mustered 7.5 sacks.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pl...ywCa01.htm

 

Why would they take Heyward in bottom of the first round over two QBs who have subsequently proven able to win in the league?

 

For that matter, why would they take DeCastro AND Adams over Russell Wilson and Nick Foles?

 

I cna come up with one of two possible reasons:

 

1)  They didn't need to spend a first round (or second round pick) on a QB who would ride the pines behind a still in his prime Ben Roethlisberger who has QBed the Steelers to two Super Bowl championships and three Super Bowl appearances;

 

2)  They actually had Heyward rated as BAP on their board and allowed superior players at more important positions to go to competitors, which isn't supposed to happen according to BAP proponents.

 

In 2010, the Steelers took Emmanuel Sanders in the draft, over guys like Eric Decker, Navorro Bowman and Daniel Graham.

 

Can anyone honestly say Sanders is better than ANY of those guys?!?  Maybe you could argue he is Decker's equal as a receiver, but there is NO WAY anyone can argue Sanders is a better player than either Bowman or Graham.

 

So again, if the Steelers are a BAP team, and BAP precludes teams from taking inferior players and allowing superior players to go to the competetion, how does that happen?

 

In 2009, the Steelers took DT Ziggy Hood in the first round.  Superior players that came off the board after Hood include Jairus Byrd, James Laurinaitis, Max Unger and LeSean McCoy.  How did that happen? 

Ummm because the draft pick didn't work out? Do you realize how hard it is to project someone as an NFL player? If everyone knew that Bryd and McCoy would have been that good, do you really think they would have made it out of the first round. This is just stupid.

Quote:Ummm because the draft pick didn't work out? Do you realize how hard it is to project someone as an NFL player? If everyone knew that Bryd and McCoy would have been that good, do you really think they would have made it out of the first round. This is just stupid.

 

Quite.

 

What we have are two sides arguing. One side says drafting is all about filling your roster with as much elite talent as possible, that's the BAP side.

 

The other side says elite talent isn't what matters, getting starters is what matters. That's the drafting Bryan Anger side.

Quote:For something to be evident, we need evidence. Saying its obvious he was a top 8 player because you, Mike Mayock, Mel Kiper and Gene Smith all though so doesnt mean he was top of our board. Same with Reggie Williams. That people thought he was a second rounder, doesn't mean Shack Harris in his infinite wisdom didn't think he was the 2nd coming of Jerry Rice. Maybe Big Ben was our #1 guy, but we don't know for sure and saying he was just to prove a point that doesn't exist is insane.

 

Vic Ketchman wrote several times that Roethlisberger was the BAP on the Jags board. Of course that was after Shack became the official scapegoat, so believe him or don't.


 

Reggie Williams was a possession receiver, with a reasonable but nothing special 40 time. In his college highlight film (HIS BEST PLAYS) he played slower than his 40 time and showed no ability to get separation. This was evident as a Jag, as was a small catch radius which din't show up on the college highlights but must have been evident in his full body of work. Even Vic Ketchman could see he was a 2nd round talent. Logically, he must have been the best remaining receiver on the Jags board, and he was the 3rd receiver on most mock drafts that year. But if the Jags braintrust thought that Reggie Williams was the best PLAYER at that point, then there's nothing else to say, except that either they were totally clueless or there was a huge drop off in talent at that point in the draft, which was my perception.

Quote:Ummm because the draft pick didn't work out? Do you realize how hard it is to project someone as an NFL player? If everyone knew that Bryd and McCoy would have been that good, do you really think they would have made it out of the first round. This is just stupid.

 

It's NOT STUPID.  It's the natural and obvious response to the argument BAP proponents have made ad nauseam that BAP drafting precludes drafting busts.

 

It doesn't!

 

Superior scouting minimizes busts.

 

I have maintained for YEARS that you can "rank em and pick em" all you want.  If the evaluations that lead to the ranking are flawed, you'll get busts whether you draft BAP or need.

 

You guys seem to be operating under the impression that it's otherwise.

Quote:Quite.

 

What we have are two sides arguing. One side says drafting is all about filling your roster with as much elite talent as possible, that's the BAP side.

 

The other side says elite talent isn't what matters, getting starters is what matters. That's the drafting Bryan Anger side.

 

No sensible person considers a punter a starter.

 

That's patently silly.

 

What matters is proper scouting and evaluations.  Without that, it doesn't matter how your construct your board or where you pick from that board.  If you have an idiot like Gene Smith ranking them, and he's a BAP drafter, he's going to have bad picks.