For those of us not being burdened with this whole common sense thing, could you please elaborate as to how use of common sense would manifest itself when you are on the board?

Venn diagram. Darft where Need and BAP overlap.

Debate over.

I agree. 
Most people refer to that intersection as "value" and that's how front offices primarily make picks. 
Good luck getting that over on the BAP purists though.

---

Personally, I'm taking the WR every time, if he is my highest graded player. There isn't a single position on this team other than QB and maybe Punter, that I wouldn't look to upgrade. I'm not completely buying into the idea that Ridley will be the same player he was in 2020. I'm praying he return to that form, but there are no guarantees. He's been away from the game almost 2 years. If I see a big, fast, sure-handed receiver who runs excellent routes and he is my top rated player, I'm definitely taking him over the rest. That's just me.

You are missing the point

This isn't about the Jaguars

Hypothetical team - hypothetical draft and big board

Left side is what your team needs - right side is what you have spent the winter and early spring grading. 

Choose

I'm still taking the WR, if he is my highest rated player. The only way I'm not taking WR, is if I have Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Calvin Johnson as my 3 current starters at WR.

---

You are missing the point

This isn't about the Jaguars

Hypothetical team - hypothetical draft and big board

Left side is what your team needs - right side is what you have spent the winter and early spring grading. 

Choose

I'm still taking the WR, if he is my highest rated player. The only way I'm not taking WR, is if I have Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Calvin Johnson as my 3 current starters at WR.

So, with excellent value staring you in the face in the second round at two positions of need, you take a position you don't need at all, just because you have him rated as 1.2% better than the guys you actually need on your team? 

weird

---

I'm still taking the WR, if he is my highest rated player. The only way I'm not taking WR, is if I have Jerry Rice, Randy Moss and Calvin Johnson as my 3 current starters at WR.

So, with excellent value staring you in the face in the second round at two positions of need, you take a position you don't need at all, just because you have him rated as 1.2% better than the guys you actually need on your team? 

weird

Last year we had the #1 overall pick and ignored CB, because we thought Shaquill Griffin and Tyson Campbell would be lock down CB's for years to come. It wasn't a position of need. "Sauce Gardner" was without question, the top player in the draft, imo. It really wasn't even close. He had size, speed, he was a consensus All-American and he had not given up a touchdown during 1000+ snaps in his college career. He also only allowed 13 receptions for 117 total yards, his last season at Cincinnati. Those were unbelievable achievements, that were unmatched by every other player at every position in the draft. If I were to draft any other way, but taking the BAP, I would have chosen someone else, but sticking to the BAP formula, I wanted Gardner. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had drafted Gardner? Taking the BAP works. I don't see why anyone would think it was weird.

---

So, with excellent value staring you in the face in the second round at two positions of need, you take a position you don't need at all, just because you have him rated as 1.2% better than the guys you actually need on your team? 

weird

Last year we had the #1 overall pick and ignored CB, because we thought Shaquill Griffin and Tyson Campbell would be lock down CB's for years to come. It wasn't a position of need. "Sauce Gardner" was without question, the top player in the draft, imo. It really wasn't even close. He had size, speed, he was a consensus All-American and he had not given up a touchdown during 1000+ snaps in his college career. He also only allowed 13 receptions for 117 total yards, his last season at Cincinnati. Those were unbelievable achievements, that were unmatched by every other player at every position in the draft. If I were to draft any other way, but taking the BAP, I would have chosen someone else, but sticking to the BAP formula, I wanted Gardner. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had drafted Gardner? Taking the BAP works. I don't see why anyone would think it was weird.

Sauce Gardner would have been a good pick. Many of us clamored for it.  Many of us knew Griffin was not it. 
But the Jags needed a nickel and they just didn't know it yet. 
They thought Williams had the skill set and he didn't. He actually played really well outside though. And Campbell's CB stats are eerily similar to Gardners in several categories.  I don't think outside CB is a need until 2024. Would Gardner be nice to have?  - sure, but I'll wait to see what Walker turns into before declaring Gardner a better pick. 
He simply had a more productive rookie year at this point.  Wouldn't have altered the ultimate outcome of our 2022 season IMO. 

I choose value over some utopian idea of BAP every day and twice on Sundays. 
If two prospects have a minuscule difference in grade on my board and one fits my need - I'm taking the player I need whether he's on the high side or low side of that equation. 

Just don't reach too far down your list  - and then taking the needed/value player is wiser IMO.
 Unless your roster is just stacked everywhere. 
I also believe that 100% of GMs do indeed make these kind of value decisions multiple times in every single draft. And they do it more often in the early rounds.

---

So, with excellent value staring you in the face in the second round at two positions of need, you take a position you don't need at all, just because you have him rated as 1.2% better than the guys you actually need on your team? 

weird

Last year we had the #1 overall pick and ignored CB, because we thought Shaquill Griffin and Tyson Campbell would be lock down CB's for years to come. It wasn't a position of need. "Sauce Gardner" was without question, the top player in the draft, imo. It really wasn't even close. He had size, speed, he was a consensus All-American and he had not given up a touchdown during 1000+ snaps in his college career. He also only allowed 13 receptions for 117 total yards, his last season at Cincinnati. Those were unbelievable achievements, that were unmatched by every other player at every position in the draft. If I were to draft any other way, but taking the BAP, I would have chosen someone else, but sticking to the BAP formula, I wanted Gardner. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had drafted Gardner? Taking the BAP works. I don't see why anyone would think it was weird.

I don't think they "ignored CB" at No. 1 because it wasn't a position of need. If anything you need 3 above average CB's right now and at least a 4th guy who can approach that level due to expected injuries over the course of the season and variant 6 DB line ups you may want to run at times.

Historically DE and OL are always prioritized over CB at the very top of the draft. As evidence that no CB as ever gone No. 1. Sauce and Stingley were both highly rated, but they were not the no-doubters that everyone is making them out to be now.

Having an all-Pro CB is a luxury; not a necessity to win a title. You need all your DBs to be above average in the scheme you are playing, and communicating well. Even the best CB's can be neutralized by QB with too much time to throw or great offensive schemes.

---

Last year we had the #1 overall pick and ignored CB, because we thought Shaquill Griffin and Tyson Campbell would be lock down CB's for years to come. It wasn't a position of need. "Sauce Gardner" was without question, the top player in the draft, imo. It really wasn't even close. He had size, speed, he was a consensus All-American and he had not given up a touchdown during 1000+ snaps in his college career. He also only allowed 13 receptions for 117 total yards, his last season at Cincinnati. Those were unbelievable achievements, that were unmatched by every other player at every position in the draft. If I were to draft any other way, but taking the BAP, I would have chosen someone else, but sticking to the BAP formula, I wanted Gardner. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had drafted Gardner? Taking the BAP works. I don't see why anyone would think it was weird.

Sauce Gardner would have been a good pick. Many of us clamored for it.  Many of us knew Griffin was not it. 
But the Jags needed a nickel and they just didn't know it yet. 
They thought Williams had the skill set and he didn't. He actually played really well outside though. And Campbell's CB stats are eerily similar to Gardners in several categories.  I don't think outside CB is a need until 2024. Would Gardner be nice to have?  - sure, but I'll wait to see what Walker turns into before declaring Gardner a better pick. 
He simply had a more productive rookie year at this point.  Wouldn't have altered the ultimate outcome of our 2022 season IMO. 

I choose value over some utopian idea of BAP every day and twice on Sundays. 
If two prospects have a minuscule difference in grade on my board and one fits my need - I'm taking the player I need whether he's on the high side or low side of that equation. 

Just don't reach too far down your list  - and then taking the needed/value player is wiser IMO.
 Unless your roster is just stacked everywhere. 
I also believe that 100% of GMs do indeed make these kind of value decisions multiple times in every single draft. And they do it more often in the early rounds.

Agreed. Given the current salary cap constraints, roster limits, how small windows generally are for entire defensive units, and peaks for players, the positions to target are often penciled out years in advance by good teams/FO. Knowing who will/may be available in FA/draft this year, next year, and in 2 years. So that they can figure out the best way to maximize all those opportunities. 

Unlike other leagues, it is not just that easy to trade away good players if you just have too many at one position group, and get appropriate value for the not-yet star but definitely have the potential guys.

---

Last year we had the #1 overall pick and ignored CB, because we thought Shaquill Griffin and Tyson Campbell would be lock down CB's for years to come. It wasn't a position of need. "Sauce Gardner" was without question, the top player in the draft, imo. It really wasn't even close. He had size, speed, he was a consensus All-American and he had not given up a touchdown during 1000+ snaps in his college career. He also only allowed 13 receptions for 117 total yards, his last season at Cincinnati. Those were unbelievable achievements, that were unmatched by every other player at every position in the draft. If I were to draft any other way, but taking the BAP, I would have chosen someone else, but sticking to the BAP formula, I wanted Gardner. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had drafted Gardner? Taking the BAP works. I don't see why anyone would think it was weird.

Sauce Gardner would have been a good pick. Many of us clamored for it.  Many of us knew Griffin was not it. 
But the Jags needed a nickel and they just didn't know it yet. 
They thought Williams had the skill set and he didn't. He actually played really well outside though. And Campbell's CB stats are eerily similar to Gardners in several categories.  I don't think outside CB is a need until 2024. Would Gardner be nice to have?  - sure, but I'll wait to see what Walker turns into before declaring Gardner a better pick. 
He simply had a more productive rookie year at this point.  Wouldn't have altered the ultimate outcome of our 2022 season IMO. 

I choose value over some utopian idea of BAP every day and twice on Sundays. 
If two prospects have a minuscule difference in grade on my board and one fits my need - I'm taking the player I need whether he's on the high side or low side of that equation. 

Just don't reach too far down your list  - and then taking the needed/value player is wiser IMO.
 Unless your roster is just stacked everywhere. 
I also believe that 100% of GMs do indeed make these kind of value decisions multiple times in every single draft. And they do it more often in the early rounds.

If we would've drafted Gardner, we wouldn't have had to sign Williams to a 3yr/$30 million deal. His cap number this season is $12.5 million. We could certainly use that now. Imagine having Campbell and Gardner on the outside and having Williams' $12.5 million salary off the books this season. We could use that savings to find the Nickle corner we need. I'm always taking BAP, unless it's a QB. Having Gardner wouldn't have changed the outcome of this season, true, but I believe it would've set us up way better for the future. 

You can say that we need to wait and see if Gardner ends of being a better pick than Walker, but that is painfully obvious right now. 

Again, everyone has different ideas of which way is best. I take BAP and you take what you consider value. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which way either one of us would go, because neither of us are running the Jaguars. Our team believes in drafting for need and taking potential over production. We just have to sit back and deal with who ever they choose.

---

Last year we had the #1 overall pick and ignored CB, because we thought Shaquill Griffin and Tyson Campbell would be lock down CB's for years to come. It wasn't a position of need. "Sauce Gardner" was without question, the top player in the draft, imo. It really wasn't even close. He had size, speed, he was a consensus All-American and he had not given up a touchdown during 1000+ snaps in his college career. He also only allowed 13 receptions for 117 total yards, his last season at Cincinnati. Those were unbelievable achievements, that were unmatched by every other player at every position in the draft. If I were to draft any other way, but taking the BAP, I would have chosen someone else, but sticking to the BAP formula, I wanted Gardner. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had drafted Gardner? Taking the BAP works. I don't see why anyone would think it was weird.

I don't think they "ignored CB" at No. 1 because it wasn't a position of need. If anything you need 3 above average CB's right now and at least a 4th guy who can approach that level due to expected injuries over the course of the season and variant 6 DB line ups you may want to run at times.

Historically DE and OL are always prioritized over CB at the very top of the draft. As evidence that no CB as ever gone No. 1. Sauce and Stingley were both highly rated, but they were not the no-doubters that everyone is making them out to be now.

Having an all-Pro CB is a luxury; not a necessity to win a title. You need all your DBs to be above average in the scheme you are playing, and communicating well. Even the best CB's can be neutralized by QB with too much time to throw or great offensive schemes.

If they didn't ignore CB, then why wasn't Gardner tops on the board?

Prioritizing O-Line and D-Line over CB is stupid. Every position outside of Kicker, punter and long snapper should at least be considered when taking the #1 overall player. I don't care what position a guy plays, outside of special teams. If he is head and shoulders the best player in the draft, I take him. 

I don't know how Gardner couldn't have been a "no doubter." Who was the last CB to come out of a major college that put up that kind of production at his size 6'3" and speed 4.41/40? The guy is/was a unicorn. 

You don't necessarily have to have to be great at any one position other than QB to win a title, but it makes things a lot easier if you have elite players at a variety of positions, including CB.

---

I don't think they "ignored CB" at No. 1 because it wasn't a position of need. If anything you need 3 above average CB's right now and at least a 4th guy who can approach that level due to expected injuries over the course of the season and variant 6 DB line ups you may want to run at times.

Historically DE and OL are always prioritized over CB at the very top of the draft. As evidence that no CB as ever gone No. 1. Sauce and Stingley were both highly rated, but they were not the no-doubters that everyone is making them out to be now.

Having an all-Pro CB is a luxury; not a necessity to win a title. You need all your DBs to be above average in the scheme you are playing, and communicating well. Even the best CB's can be neutralized by QB with too much time to throw or great offensive schemes.

If they didn't ignore CB, then why wasn't Gardner tops on the board?

Prioritizing O-Line and D-Line over CB is stupid. Every position outside of Kicker, punter and long snapper should at least be considered when taking the #1 overall player. I don't care what position a guy plays, outside of special teams. If he is head and shoulders the best player in the draft, I take him. 

I don't know how Gardner couldn't have been a "no doubter." Who was the last CB to come out of a major college that put up that kind of production at his size 6'3" and speed 4.41/40? The guy is/was a unicorn. 

You don't necessarily have to have to be great at any one position other than QB to win a title, but it makes things a lot easier if you have elite players at a variety of positions, including CB.

They signed a CB in free agency to a 30 million dollar deal 6 weeks prior to the draft in question.
That's a long, loooong way from "ignoring CB." 

Front offices do indeed prioritize or value positions differently, whether you and I like it or not.
 CB will be further down some GM's lists than others. 

You've mentioned college production in at least 4 posts that I've seen the past few days.
Nothing in the NFL lexicon could be more subjective than "college production."
There are so many variables in "college production" that in no way translate to the professional game. Even just the fluctuations in level of competition from one NCAA conference to the next practically makes it a non-factor for many players.

---

Need vs BAP is dumb.  just use common sense.

What is your "common sense" pick when you are on the clock in this situation in the second round?

Needs listed in order of priority. Nobody wants to trade for your pick.

I assume that the need is short-term/coming season, so we are not looking down the road. It would also be helpful to know the stats of what is currently on the roster. How much of an improvement would ex. the CB add to that room compared to the alternatives?

My gut instinct is to go with the OT, but I would feel better about it if I felt certain that the pick would be an upgrade. I would also consider the CB because it appears to add more value. TE would only be a choice if the gap in need between CB and TE is very narrow and there is a better fit between TE prospect and the team’s needed intangibles. Selecting a deep threat CB if the team need someone in the slot makes little sense, or if the TE prospect is a blocking TE and team needs a receiving TE. Having a bit more info on how much each position on the board would improve the respective room could make for a different decision.

Finally, I am still trying to figure out these grades. Are there any trends within the difference in grades between each position? I assume that the idea is to rate every player according to their performance, but are the grades comparable across positions? It seems reasonable to use grades to compare players at the same position, but it seems to me that skill positions often get a higher grade than the others.

---

If they didn't ignore CB, then why wasn't Gardner tops on the board?

Prioritizing O-Line and D-Line over CB is stupid. Every position outside of Kicker, punter and long snapper should at least be considered when taking the #1 overall player. I don't care what position a guy plays, outside of special teams. If he is head and shoulders the best player in the draft, I take him. 

I don't know how Gardner couldn't have been a "no doubter." Who was the last CB to come out of a major college that put up that kind of production at his size 6'3" and speed 4.41/40? The guy is/was a unicorn. 

You don't necessarily have to have to be great at any one position other than QB to win a title, but it makes things a lot easier if you have elite players at a variety of positions, including CB.

They signed a CB in free agency to a 30 million dollar deal 6 weeks prior to the draft in question.
That's a long, loooong way from "ignoring CB." 

Front offices do indeed prioritize or value positions differently, whether you and I like it or not.
 CB will be further down some GM's lists than others. 

You've mentioned college production in at least 4 posts that I've seen the past few days.
Nothing in the NFL lexicon could be more subjective than "college production."
There are so many variables in "college production" that in no way translate to the professional game. Even just the fluctuations in level of competition from one NCAA conference to the next practically makes it a non-factor for many players.

I know. I was referring to ignoring CB in the draft. I'm simply saying that I and others, recognized that "Sauce" Gardner should've been the #1 overall pick the day the season ended. I saw him as the best overall player midway through the season. Sometimes, you see a certain player and you just see stardom. It's not always that way. Lord knows, I have been wrong on some guys in the past, but I truly feel as strongly about Gardner as I did when I saw Trevor Lawrence play. I knew he was the best overall player in the 2021 draft. I truly believed both Lawrence and Gardner were "no-brainer" #1 overall picks. Therefore we shouldn't have even signed Darious Williams in the first place, because we should've had Gardner locked in as the #1 pick for months. That would've saved us $30 million dollars overall and $12.5 million this coming season and imo, we would have had the best pair of young lockdown corners in the NFL for the foreseeable future. 

I know teams prioritize certain positions. I said that. I still think it's wrong and stupid and it doesn't change that I would still draft the BAP. Just because other teams follow a certain formula, doesn't mean I would. The only position I value over others is QB and we already have a franchise QB. 

I know there are variables in college production. I said that in one of my other posts. I took that into account when I watched Gardner play. It doesn't change anything. When I saw him play, I saw a bigger version of Darrelle Revis. What team in their right mind wouldn't want that? 

The whole question of BAP versus value has been answered on my end. I see/saw Gardner as a future HOF player. Not a potential HOF player, a HOF player. I'm sticking with this assessment. I'm just explaining what I would have done. I identified him as my top player, regardless of the position and I would've made him my #1 overall selection. With this coming draft, I would do the same thing and select the top player available, no matter what position he plays. I have no clue right now who that player may be. It's much different picking #24 and none of us know who will actually be available when we are on the clock. Everyone thinks their way of selecting is better, but none of us on this board are GM's, (at least I think none of us are.) This is all subjective and in the grand scheme of things, it's meaningless, because in the end, none of our opinions matter. We're not making the real decisions. We're just trying to justify why we would make the picks we would make. It's all meaningless fun.

---

McShays newest mock draft has us picking Jaxon smith-njigba in the first. I would absolutely LOVE that. I really don't think he will.be available there. He was the best receiver when him, olave, and garret wilson were all at Ohio state. If he didn't have a lingering hammy issue last year he would have most likely been a top 10 pick.

---

What is your "common sense" pick when you are on the clock in this situation in the second round?

Needs listed in order of priority. Nobody wants to trade for your pick.

I assume that the need is short-term/coming season, so we are not looking down the road.
Assume the needs are listed an order of priority that considers immediacy.
It would also be helpful to know the stats of what is currently on the roster. How much of an improvement would ex. the CB add to that room compared to the alternatives?
Assume the needs are listed in an order of priority that considers this as well. I know I would consider this when listing my needs. 

My gut instinct is to go with the OT, but I would feel better about it if I felt certain that the pick would be an upgrade. I would also consider the CB because it appears to add more value. TE would only be a choice if the gap in need between CB and TE is very narrow and there is a better fit between TE prospect and the team’s needed intangibles. Selecting a deep threat CB if the team need someone in the slot makes little sense, or if the TE prospect is a blocking TE and team needs a receiving TE. Having a bit more info on how much each position on the board would improve the respective room could make for a different decision. I can understand how such details can affect the decision here. Let's just assume the players listed all suit your needs - and they wouldn't be listed as needs if a second rounder didn't appear to be an upgrade.

Finally, I am still trying to figure out these grades. Are there any trends within the difference in grades between each position? I assume that the idea is to rate every player according to their performance, but are the grades comparable across positions? It seems reasonable to use grades to compare players at the same position, but it seems to me that skill positions often get a higher grade than the others.
Assume these grades are putting players on an even playing field - with positional value already factored in. These grades would represent the player's anticipated value as a pro player based on all scouting information gathered and analyzed. 

Answering in red above

---

McShays newest mock draft has us picking Jaxon smith-njigba in the first. I would absolutely LOVE that. I really don't think he will.be available there. He was the best receiver when him, olave, and garret wilson were all at Ohio state. If he didn't have a lingering hammy issue last year he would have most likely been a top 10 pick.

Could you post his reasoning?

I'm very curious why he's going WR in round 1.

---

They signed a CB in free agency to a 30 million dollar deal 6 weeks prior to the draft in question.
That's a long, loooong way from "ignoring CB." 

Front offices do indeed prioritize or value positions differently, whether you and I like it or not.
 CB will be further down some GM's lists than others. 

You've mentioned college production in at least 4 posts that I've seen the past few days.
Nothing in the NFL lexicon could be more subjective than "college production."
There are so many variables in "college production" that in no way translate to the professional game. Even just the fluctuations in level of competition from one NCAA conference to the next practically makes it a non-factor for many players.

I know. I was referring to ignoring CB in the draft. I'm simply saying that I and others, recognized that "Sauce" Gardner should've been the #1 overall pick the day the season ended. I saw him as the best overall player midway through the season. Sometimes, you see a certain player and you just see stardom. It's not always that way. Lord knows, I have been wrong on some guys in the past, but I truly feel as strongly about Gardner as I did when I saw Trevor Lawrence play. I knew he was the best overall player in the 2021 draft. I truly believed both Lawrence and Gardner were "no-brainer" #1 overall picks. Therefore we shouldn't have even signed Darious Williams in the first place, because we should've had Gardner locked in as the #1 pick for months. That would've saved us $30 million dollars overall and $12.5 million this coming season and imo, we would have had the best pair of young lockdown corners in the NFL for the foreseeable future. 

I know teams prioritize certain positions. I said that. I still think it's wrong and stupid and it doesn't change that I would still draft the BAP. Just because other teams follow a certain formula, doesn't mean I would. The only position I value over others is QB and we already have a franchise QB. 

I know there are variables in college production. I said that in one of my other posts. I took that into account when I watched Gardner play. It doesn't change anything. When I saw him play, I saw a bigger version of Darrelle Revis. What team in their right mind wouldn't want that? 

The whole question of BAP versus value has been answered on my end. I see/saw Gardner as a future HOF player. Not a potential HOF player, a HOF player. I'm sticking with this assessment. I'm just explaining what I would have done. I identified him as my top player, regardless of the position and I would've made him my #1 overall selection. With this coming draft, I would do the same thing and select the top player available, no matter what position he plays. I have no clue right now who that player may be. It's much different picking #24 and none of us know who will actually be available when we are on the clock. Everyone thinks their way of selecting is better, but none of us on this board are GM's, (at least I think none of us are.) This is all subjective and in the grand scheme of things, it's meaningless, because in the end, none of our opinions matter. We're not making the real decisions. We're just trying to justify why we would make the picks we would make. It's all meaningless fun.

It's perfectly fine to "ignore" a position in the draft when you already have a second round pick and two highly paid free agents at the position. In fact, I'd call it wise, unless a generational talent fell into your lap and you knew he was a big upgrade to what you had. You could make a case for Gardner fitting that bill, but the talking heads/analysts out there were very split on that "generational"  opinion. 

Jags brass didn't realize Shaq Griffin was not even a serviceable stop-gap for one more year,  nor did they see that they'd overrated Williams ability to play the slot.
 If they'd known these things - I like to think they'd have moved on Gardner. The funny thing is, if they had taken him first over all, half of the football universe would have absolutely LAMBASTED the f.o. for reaching.  Even though he looks so far like he would be worth the pick. 

At the end of the day - Walker still has a very good chance of turning into a stud performer, and the Jags have the luxury of playing the 2023 season with two good corners manning the outside in Williams and Campbell before they need to consider spending a first round pick on one. 
A nickel back could conceivably be found later in this draft. 

This year will be very interesting to watch in regard to needs vs top talent available. 
With cap space so tight, it would appear they need to land at least 3 starting quality players in the draft - and they'll need to be fairly specific about which positions they address. 

Baalke has been very vocal on listening to his coaches about what they want, so I anticipate needs will be prioritized whenever they can justify good value. He's said it so often, I almost think he's kind-of saying "hey, don't blame me. I'm giving them what they want."  

I hope that we luck out and find that the top rated player at some of our picks actually addresses a need. It does work out that way sometimes.

---

McShays newest mock draft has us picking Jaxon smith-njigba in the first. I would absolutely LOVE that. I really don't think he will.be available there. He was the best receiver when him, olave, and garret wilson were all at Ohio state. If he didn't have a lingering hammy issue last year he would have most likely been a top 10 pick.

Could you post his reasoning?

I'm very curious why he's going WR in round 1.

My guess is a best player available scenario.

---

Need vs BAP is dumb.  just use common sense.

What is your "common sense" pick when you are on the clock in this situation in the second round?

Needs listed in order of priority. Nobody wants to trade for your pick.

I would first need to understand what those grading scales mean.  I personally have never set up a big board so it's easy for me to say this here and now but I have a hard time believing I would rate someone as precise as a 91.1.  In addition I don't know what the gap is between that WR 91.1 and CB 89.9.  When my original board was created was there only one player (that SS at 91.0) in between those two or were there 20 players in between?  It's hard for me to understand the gap in talent if I don't know the gap in those values.  If I was sticking with precise numbers, I would probably do the same for my team needs as well.  And in that case would do some simple math to know my pure value board and my adjusted board by accounting for need.  

To play along in your example though without knowing the answers to those questions I posed and not knowing the gap in need, I could see myself leaning towards the corner.  If you told me OT, DE, and CB were nearly interchangeable in terms of how desperate the need is, TE and DT were the next level of need (have solid starters, need some young depth, but could use a superstar if you came across one), and then everything else was just a nice to have, I think I would definitely go towards CB.  If CB was actually in that second tier of need like it probably is this year for the Jags, then I'd want to know what the WR and SS situations are.  But I'd still lean CB due to the premium position.

Again having never done this, but thinking through it, if I managed a draft process I dont think Id use a number scheme like that.  I'd probably group players into tiers.  The amount in each tier would change with each year obviously, but on average every draft it feels like there are 1-5 super elite prospects.  And then you have a second tier of elite players from lets say 5-15.  And then a bigger tier from maybe 16-30.  And so on and so on.  I'd probably then rank the team needs and probably classify what the need is (do I have starters but no depth, do we have depth and starters but no one elite, do I have no front line starters but lots of good backups, etc...).  So lets say it's this draft and our Jags pick in the late first is on the clock.  Realistically all the guys from super elite Tier 1 are gone, but there is still one player from Tier 2.  It's a CB.  I wouldn't rank that as our biggest need as Campbell is becoming really good and Williams played much better once outside.  However we don't have a lot of depth and nickel is basically like a starting position these days.  Plus it is a premium position.  So I would probably take that CB.  However if that one person from Tier 2 was a 4-3 MLB, I'd probably then look at my Tier 3 players and see which players from biggest need are there.  Pre-draft, I could also see within each of the tiers ordering guys based on certain qualities or perhaps needs so you have an idea of who the top priority are in an example such as that.  I would probably also flag guys for certain things such as injury.  Might have a guy that would be Tier 2 when healthy but is currently in Tier 4 due to health issues and would flag him as such.

That is a rough sketch of how I would handle the draft.  Early in the draft you are focusing on both value and need but the later you get in the draft, I think value naturally comes into play more.  You're sitting there in round 5 and some guy from your 4th tier is still there.  Even if not a position of huge need, at some point you can't pass up that value.  As part of the draft preparation you discuss a number of different scenarios and mock out how you think things will play.  So when the time comes you know how to execute and try to maximize value while also addressing needs.  I know Vic Ketchman used to say he'd rank everyone 1-400 and would just pick whoever was at the top and that the draft would be a pretty boring day.  That is easy but I'd argue doesnt necessarily maximize value and you could end up using valuable resources in areas where you shouldn't.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

McShays newest mock draft has us picking Jaxon smith-njigba in the first. I would absolutely LOVE that. I really don't think he will.be available there. He was the best receiver when him, olave, and garret wilson were all at Ohio state. If he didn't have a lingering hammy issue last year he would have most likely been a top 10 pick.

Could you post his reasoning?

I'm very curious why he's going WR in round 1.

24. Jacksonville Jaguars
Jaxon Smith-Njigba, WR, Ohio State

The Jaguars' pass game took a huge step forward in Trevor Lawrence's second season. The Christian Kirk signing paid off, and Calvin Ridley -- acquired at the deadline -- should be a factor next season once he returns from suspension. But Lawrence probably still needs another pass-catcher, especially because tight end Evan Engram is a free agent and we can't be sure what Ridley will bring after missing more than a year.

Smith-Njigba is a tough evaluation. He caught 15 passes for 347 yards and three TDs in the 2021 season's Rose Bowl, capping off a 1,606-yard campaign. But he had two catches in that game that were longer than his total yardage for the entire 2022 season (43), as a nagging hamstring injury limited him to five catches over three contests. JSN displays soft hands, precise route running and good after-the-catch ability, and he could be a steal for Jacksonville if he falls here.

---

What is your "common sense" pick when you are on the clock in this situation in the second round?

Needs listed in order of priority. Nobody wants to trade for your pick.

I would first need to understand what those grading scales mean.  I personally have never set up a big board so it's easy for me to say this here and now but I have a hard time believing I would rate someone as precise as a 91.1.  In addition I don't know what the gap is between that WR 91.1 and CB 89.9.  When my original board was created was there only one player (that SS at 91.0) in between those two or were there 20 players in between?  It's hard for me to understand the gap in talent if I don't know the gap in those values.  If I was sticking with precise numbers, I would probably do the same for my team needs as well.  And in that case would do some simple math to know my pure value board and my adjusted board by accounting for need.  

To play along in your example though without knowing the answers to those questions I posed and not knowing the gap in need, I could see myself leaning towards the corner.  If you told me OT, DE, and CB were nearly interchangeable in terms of how desperate the need is, TE and DT were the next level of need (have solid starters, need some young depth, but could use a superstar if you came across one), and then everything else was just a nice to have, I think I would definitely go towards CB.  If CB was actually in that second tier of need like it probably is this year for the Jags, then I'd want to know what the WR and SS situations are.  But I'd still lean CB due to the premium position.

Again having never done this, but thinking through it, if I managed a draft process I dont think Id use a number scheme like that.  I'd probably group players into tiers.  The amount in each tier would change with each year obviously, but on average every draft it feels like there are 1-5 super elite prospects.  And then you have a second tier of elite players from lets say 5-15.  And then a bigger tier from maybe 16-30.  And so on and so on.  I'd probably then rank the team needs and probably classify what the need is (do I have starters but no depth, do we have depth and starters but no one elite, do I have no front line starters but lots of good backups, etc...).  So lets say it's this draft and our Jags pick in the late first is on the clock.  Realistically all the guys from super elite Tier 1 are gone, but there is still one player from Tier 2.  It's a CB.  I wouldn't rank that as our biggest need as Campbell is becoming really good and Williams played much better once outside.  However we don't have a lot of depth and nickel is basically like a starting position these days.  Plus it is a premium position.  So I would probably take that CB.  However if that one person from Tier 2 was a 4-3 MLB, I'd probably then look at my Tier 3 players and see which players from biggest need are there.  Pre-draft, I could also see within each of the tiers ordering guys based on certain qualities or perhaps needs so you have an idea of who the top priority are in an example such as that.  I would probably also flag guys for certain things such as injury.  Might have a guy that would be Tier 2 when healthy but is currently in Tier 4 due to health issues and would flag him as such.

That is a rough sketch of how I would handle the draft.  Early in the draft you are focusing on both value and need but the later you get in the draft, I think value naturally comes into play more.  You're sitting there in round 5 and some guy from your 4th tier is still there.  Even if not a position of huge need, at some point you can't pass up that value.  As part of the draft preparation you discuss a number of different scenarios and mock out how you think things will play.  So when the time comes you know how to execute and try to maximize value while also addressing needs.  I know Vic Ketchman used to say he'd rank everyone 1-400 and would just pick whoever was at the top and that the draft would be a pretty boring day.  That is easy but I'd argue doesnt necessarily maximize value and you could end up using valuable resources in areas where you shouldn't.

Yeah - everyone seems to be focusing this hypothetical on the Jags and getting completely lost in the minutiae of the grading process.

The graphic posted and question asked had nothing to do with any of that and does not apply to the Jags or any specific team.

• GMs/FOs have varying methods of grading players and assembling big boards.

• The grading "system" in the example is arbitrary.

It's just an illustration of how teams reach down for similarly graded players to fill needs instead of taking the top player on their board. And they often don't need to reach far - thus still attaining good value. When they DO reach too far, the trouble begins. 
The graphic is just illustrating this very basic concept.

---