Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Combined with need...

Absolutely NOT.

 

You pick the best player available regardless of position with each and every draft pick.

 

This is the only way you are ever going to reach competitive strength in the NFL.

Quote:Absolutely NOT.

 

You pick the best player available regardless of position with each and every draft pick.

 

This is the only way you are ever going to reach competitive strength in the NFL.

 

You obviously did not read a single one of my posts about this because I very clearly explained why you should never draft a player you don't need just because he's the best available. The only way to reach competitive strength in the NFL is upgrade every position on the roster that needs to be upgraded. If we don't need the guy who has more talent than anyone else, we are putting an elite player on the bench without fixing anything. How can that be so hard to understand?

Quote:Absolutely NOT.

 

You pick the best player available regardless of position with each and every draft pick.

 

This is the only way you are ever going to reach competitive strength in the NFL.

 

Over the long run...

 

This is true.  If you have a so-called stockpiled position, you have valuable trade material.

 

Pass on the better player simply because of need, and you're giving up talent and value.

Quote:Over the long run...

 

This is true.  If you have a so-called stockpiled position, you have valuable trade material.

 

Pass on the better player simply because of need, and you're giving up talent and value.

 

You act like it is impossible to have great talent by picking a player you need instead of one you don't. That happened in the past because our general managers sucked at evaluating talent. I said earlier if they were actually good talent evaluators, filling needs would not be sacrificing talent.

Quote:You act like it is impossible to have great talent by picking a player you need instead of one you don't. That happened in the past because our general managers sucked at evaluating talent. I said earlier if they were actually good talent evaluators, filling needs would not be sacrificing talent.

 

That's been exactly the case with all our busts lately... reaches for need, while we left better players on the board.

Quote:That's been exactly the case with all our busts lately... reaches for need, while we left better players on the board.

 

I am saying what if we picked better players at the same positions that were selected?

Quote:I am saying what if we picked better players at the same positions that were selected?

 

Like?

Quote:That's been exactly the case with all our busts lately... reaches for need, while we left better players on the board.

I don't think they were reaches for need, they were simply misjudged talent. 

08    Harvey -  total bust. 

09    Monroe - OK, not sure if he ever quite lived up to 8th overall.

10    Alualu -  would have been OK for a second rounder, never performed close to a #10

11    Gabbert - total bust

12    Blackmon - could go either way

13    Joeckel - too soon to tell.

Funny how every missed pick is all of a sudden a needs based reach.

 

Worrying about draft philosophy is a waste of time.

Quote:Funny how every missed pick is all of a sudden a needs based reach.

 

Worrying about draft philosophy is a waste of time.

I tend to agree.   Every GM that preaches BAP considers need and every GM that preaches need considers BAP in his selections.  

 

If Caldwell regularly brings in players that that are upgrades to their position  and finds a franchise QB -  I don't care if he's throwing darts at his big board to pick them. 

 

Debating the merits of need vs. BAP seems an exercise in futility and don't think there is a GM out there that is purely one or the other. 

Quote:I tend to agree.   Every GM that preaches BAP considers need and every GM that preaches need considers BAP in his selections.  

 

If Caldwell regularly brings in players that that are upgrades to their position  and finds a franchise QB -  I don't care if he's throwing darts at his big board to pick them. 

 

Debating the merits of need vs. BAP seems an exercise in futility and don't think there is a GM out there that is purely one or the other. 

 

So my question is why do a lot of fans think it must be one way or the other?

Quote:So my question is why do a lot of fans think it must be one way or the other?

I don't think teams ( or their general managers) do think that.  Not as an absolute.  I think fans do sometimes. 

 

Certainly many GMs lean one way or the other - and some more strongly than others - but their thinking and approach isn't black or white on the matter.  

They operate in the gray.  And there's a lot of room to operate within the gray - while there's very little in the black or white. 

 

It's like a grayscale spectrum. A small percentage of it is black (needs)  and a small percentage is white (BAP)   -  Most of it is gray.  And that's where I think the typical GM's philosophy tends to hover.  Just my opinion on the matter - not intended to be gospel. 

 

Best Available Player is a crapshoot anyway.


DE's? Gene Smith chose two in round 5 of the 2010 nfl draft.  Austen Lane and Larry Hart.  Greg Hardy was the next DE selected after Lane in Round 6.  Had Gene Smith chosen Greg Hardy with one of those picks, things would have turned out right.  

 

Vic drilled it into everyone's head that you take the best player.  Problem is, it's not an exact science.  It doesn't matter if you pick based on need -- so long as you get the right players.  

 

You take players based on what you think they'll produce.  If you have two players: Player A and Player B, and you believe both will produce like a 1st round player, and that Player B will have more impact than Player A, but Player A is more talented, then selecting Player B still makes sense.  

Quote:I don't think teams ( or their general managers) do think that. Not as an absolute. I think fans do sometimes.


Certainly many GMs lean one way or the other - and some more strongly than others - but their thinking and approach isn't black or white on the matter.

They operate in the gray. And there's a lot of room to operate within the gray - while there's very little in the black or white.


It's like a grayscale spectrum. A small percentage of it is black (needs) and a small percentage is white (BAP) - Most of it is gray. And that's where I think the typical GM's philosophy tends to hover. Just my opinion on the matter - not intended to be gospel.

Couldn't agree more. One thing I'd like to add though.


"I don't care how you do it, just get it right."


Strategy is a wonderful thing, but successful tactics are the key to winning.

Why do people argue with jungle cat? Such a waste

Caldwell said something last year that made perfect sense. Often, their are multiple players available at the time of the pick that have the same, or nearly the same, grade. Need at that point becomes an important variable to consider. He also said something to the effect of that it would make no sense to draft 6 RBs.

We the fans see a top prospects draft list in a forced ranking format. Sometimes we fail to recognize that although a prospect's forced ranking may appear much better than another player (ie. ranked 155th vs. 168th), their actual ranking of projected performance level in the NFL may be the same.

Best Available Need - There problem solved.

Quote:Why do people argue with jungle cat? Such a waste

 

Because I want to know why Jungle Cat is such an idiot.

Quote:Best Available Need - There problem solved.

 

Exactly what I was saying. It was fine to pick a defensive lineman with the tenth pick in the 2010 draft. The mistake was which lineman we picked. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

Quote:Because I want to know why Jungle Cat is such an idiot.

 

Meth.  Lot's of meth.