(04-10-2021, 09:22 AM)Bullseye Wrote: It happens every year.

In advocating a particular draft strategy, fans and experts alike will examine need to help determine where a team will or will not or should/should not go.



However, if Baalke is true to his word that he is a BAP drafter and that he will draft irrespective of need, it may be inevitable that some needs will not be addressed adequately, while positions of lesser needs may get draft attention.

So to the extent a team coming off a 1-15 season could have positions of relative strength, what positions would you not mind or object to the team drafting, especially in the early rounds?

If the team "drafted to strength," under what circumstances would you find it acceptable?  What players would you want at the position?

Under what circumstances would you NOT want these strengths to be bolstered further?

The problem is we can't know what the positional strength will be after a draft. A team can draft the same position with every pick and still not have talent at the position, because misses happen, and the later on the draft you get the less likely it is that the player you select will be great, anyway. Teams need to just try to take great players. No one ever complains about having three great tackles or four great cornerbacks. The likelihood of even having too many great players at a position to be able to get them in the field together seems pretty low. Teams should just trust their evaluations and take the best player left, understanding about half of the guys they take probably won't be as good as they thought they are, anyway.

---