Quote:Okay. I understand.
Sometimes teams won't share the evaluation, which means Caldwell will need to be correct in his evaluations and have the strength of conviction to actually select those players who are actually better rather than pulling a 2004 Jaguars and letting a hall of fame QB fall to your former division rival.
So in other words, scout right and you will pick good players?
Quote:So in other words, scout right and you will pick good players?
More like scout right and don't pass on anyone because of what you already have on your roster and you will pick good players.
Quote:More like scout right and don't pass on anyone because of what you already have on your roster and you will pick good players.
Even if that player you already have on the roster is someone you scouted 12 months earlier and liked enough to use a top 10 pick on?
Quote:Even if that player you already have on the roster is someone you scouted 12 months earlier and liked enough to use a top 10 pick on?
If you're picking in the top ten then you need to improve at a lot of spots. There are a lot of ways to make a roster work.
Quote:So you'd rather have...
Round 1: WR (87 grade)
Round 2: WR (80 Grade)
than:
Round 1: DE (86 grade)
Round 2: WR (80 Grade)
When you already have several good WRs on the roster.
Quote:If you're picking in the top ten then you need to improve at a lot of spots. There are a lot of ways to make a roster work.
But drafting a QB top-ten the year after drafting a QB top-ten is just foolish. Think of it like this:
Shack drafts Leftwich in '03, then Roethlisberger is on the board in '04. At the time, Leftwich was a promising young QB. There were no indications that he'd later prove to not be worth the pick used on him in 2003. Shack gets on the phone and tells other teams that he's going to draft Roethlisberger unless they trade up, but they're not sending back any offers, at least none that return in value what the team risked losing in quality. Shack now has a choice: he can play hardball and draft Roethlisberger, or he can move on to another player of similar grade who fills a position of need.
And let's not forget, this whole argument is based on the notion that Reggie wasn't on top of Shack's draft board at the time anyway, in which case the whole exercise is moot.
So now, let's say the Jaguars draft Roethlisberger and try to trade him immediately. Here's the problem with that: no one wanted to trade up for him, so what would make you think that anyone's willing to give up what it would have cost to trade up--if not more--to get him now? At that point, either the Jaguars get hosed on draft day by trading Roethlisberger for far less than market value on the trade-down would have been, they get hosed sometime after the draft when they give Roethlisberger away for a second-round pick the following year, or they're stuck with two very high-paid players at a position where only one sees the field at a time.
No matter how you cut it, the Jaguars made the right decision in 2004 as it related to Roethlisberger. Now, do I agree with the Williams pick? No. I didn't then, and I don't now, but if the Jaguars were left with the choice of drafting a second top-ten QB in two years, trading down without recouping the value you'd lose in player quality, or picking the next guy on the board, then picking the next guy was, imo, exactly right.
In other words, the ridiculous notion that you can "show the other teams you mean business" is hollow, as you have even less leverage than before.
Just another example as to why the assumptions that BAP is based upon are unrealistic.
And also, another reason no one employs it in the NFL.
I think it might be great in the NBA, but it is impractical in the NFL.
Quote:So you'd rather have...
Round 1: WR (87 grade)
Round 2: WR (80 Grade)
than:
Round 1: DE (86 grade)
Round 2: WR (80 Grade)
Quote:When you already have several good WRs on the roster.
Sort of the way the Jaguars were set at QB in 2004 and 2005.
Don't try to start thinking about what needs are over the long term. Always take the guy who is ranked higher on the board, even if you think you're set at that position, if you can't make up some of the value by trading back.
Quote:But drafting a QB top-ten the year after drafting a QB top-ten is just foolish. Think of it like this:
Shack drafts Leftwich in '03, then Roethlisberger is on the board in '04. At the time, Leftwich was a promising young QB. There were no indications that he'd later prove to not be worth the pick used on him in 2003. Shack gets on the phone and tells other teams that he's going to draft Roethlisberger unless they trade up, but they're not sending back any offers, at least none that return in value what the team risked losing in quality. Shack now has a choice: he can play hardball and draft Roethlisberger, or he can move on to another player of similar grade who fills a position of need.
And let's not forget, this whole argument is based on the notion that Reggie wasn't on top of Shack's draft board at the time anyway, in which case the whole exercise is moot.
So now, let's say the Jaguars draft Roethlisberger and try to trade him immediately. Here's the problem with that: no one wanted to trade up for him, so what would make you think that anyone's willing to give up what it would have cost to trade up--if not more--to get him now? At that point, either the Jaguars get hosed on draft day by trading Roethlisberger for far less than market value on the trade-down would have been, they get hosed sometime after the draft when they give Roethlisberger away for a second-round pick the following year, or they're stuck with two very high-paid players at a position where only one sees the field at a time.
No matter how you cut it, the Jaguars made the right decision in 2004 as it related to Roethlisberger. Now, do I agree with the Williams pick? No. I didn't then, and I don't now, but if the Jaguars were left with the choice of drafting a second top-ten QB in two years, trading down without recouping the value you'd lose in player quality, or picking the next guy on the board, then picking the next guy was, imo, exactly right.
We as the fans didn't know what Leftwich would be, but when the Jaguars radio guys talk about the 2004 draft they say a lot of guys already knew at that point that Leftwich would never make it in the league and that taking Roethlisberger should have been done.
QB is the most important position in all of sports, and if a truly elite prospect is there you either have to take him or make someone else pay to come and get him. Anything else is wasting value, and the draft is all about value.
Free agency is for positional need.
Quote:Sort of the way the Jaguars were set at QB in 2004 and 2005.
Don't try to start thinking about what needs are over the long term. Always take the guy who is ranked higher on the board, even if you think you're set at that position, if you can't make up some of the value by trading back.
Don't always do anything. That is also a recipe for failure.
Quote:Don't always do anything. That is also a recipe for failure.
You don't succeed without a good plan, and if you're not following your plan then you're just walking in circles.
Quote:You don't succeed without a good plan, and if you're not following your plan then you're just walking in circles.
You can have a plan and be flexible which Caldwell is. He has also said as much. And no GM is doing what you suggest. Not one.
Quote:You can have a plan and be flexible which Caldwell is. He has also said as much. And no GM is doing what you suggest. Not one.
There's a difference between flexibility and abandoning principles.
If he's taking guys that he doesn't believe are as good as the guys he's passing on because of positional needs then he has the wrong principles.
As for whether any GM would have the courage to actually always take the best player if they can't trade out of a slot, you may be right, most people tend to lose sight of the big picture and start thinking small when confronted with choices that are too big for them.
Quote:There's a difference between flexibility and abandoning principles.
If he's taking guys that he doesn't believe are as good as the guys he's passing on because of positional needs then he has the wrong principles.
As for whether any GM would have the courage to actually always take the best player if they can't trade out of a slot, you may be right, most people tend to lose sight of the big picture and start thinking small when confronted with choices that are too big for them.
No, the reason is there are too many scenarios that come up. That is why you have to be flexible. There is a reason not one GM does what you keep saying every GM needs to do.
Quote:No, the reason is there are too many scenarios that come up. That is why you have to be flexible. There is a reason not one GM does what you keep saying every GM needs to do.
Small men tending to their little gardens.
Seriously, if positional value isn't already built into the board of most of these guys I'd be shocked. Which is to say that no punter, no matter how excellent, will be ranked higher than a good o or d lineman.
Like I said, if a GM is abandoning his board and reaching for guys that's a big problem. I don't get the feeling Caldwell is like that, though. My guess is once his board is set he won't start going "well I didn't expect player x to be gone, I'd better reach for that lesser guy who plays position y because we need a warm body in a seat in that meeting room.
Quote:Small men tending to their little gardens.
Seriously, if positional value isn't already built into the board of most of these guys I'd be shocked. Which is to say that no punter, no matter how excellent, will be ranked higher than a good o or d lineman.
Like I said, if a GM is abandoning his board and reaching for guys that's a big problem. I don't get the feeling Caldwell is like that, though. My guess is once his board is set he won't start going "well I didn't expect player x to be gone, I'd better reach for that lesser guy who plays position y because we need a warm body in a seat in that meeting room.
But that isn't what we are talking about. You said always take the highest rated player no matter what. Always. Which means there is never a scenario which you don't. What are you considering a reach. 87 ranked player compared to 86 ranked player? Who said anything about abandoning their board? Caldwell has already said he is mixes need with best available. It just depends.
Quote:But that isn't what we are talking about. You said always take the highest rated player no matter what. Always. Which means there is never a scenario which you don't. What are you considering a reach. 87 ranked player compared to 86 ranked player? Who said anything about abandoning their board? Caldwell has already said he is mixes need with best available. It just depends.
I said always take the highest rated guy if you can't trade back.
I consider it a reach any time you take a guy that you already evaluated as worse than a guy you're passing up. That includes if you rated one guy an 87 and the other an 86.
Quote:But that isn't what we are talking about. You said always take the highest rated player no matter what. Always. Which means there is never a scenario which you don't. What are you considering a reach. 87 ranked player compared to 86 ranked player? Who said anything about abandoning their board? Caldwell has already said he is mixes need with best available. It just depends.
Lets say after the Colts took Luck they ended up with the #1 pick the following year. Another Luck came along but there was a DE at a slightly lesser grade (by 1 point) also available... Do the Colts still take the next Andrew Luck even though they already have one?
Quote:Lets say after the Colts took Luck they ended up with the #1 pick the following year. Another Luck came along but there was a DE at a slightly lesser grade (by 1 point) also available... Do the Colts still take the next Andrew Luck even though they already have one?
No, I don't think they do. Main reason is the chances of you getting more then the #1 pick in a trade later down the road is slim. Luck is your guy for 10+ years.