(03-04-2020, 06:58 AM)Andy G Wrote:

(03-04-2020, 04:39 AM)JackCity Wrote: Of course it's a possibility. Doesn't mean i think it's best best combination of need/positional value/depth of class. 

You need to remember that they aren't taking players for how much they help the team as rookies, rookies are for the most part not impact players at any position. They're taking players who will be impact players year 2/3/4 , even GMs in Caldwell's situation. 

So no there isn't really a difference at all. Just more positions that credibly fit into the "position of need" , than most years

Sounds to me like you're favouring the "we're still drafting for need" argument.

So as a hypothetical - you have a choice of two players...

Player A is at a position of need
Player B is a lesser need, but a slightly higher graded player

Which one do you pick?

With things the way they are now, I think I would probably go for the best player available (player B), regardless of whether there are bigger needs elsewhere.

You would pick player A?

That's the distinction for me, although I accept it's always a sliding scale.