(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?

It depends on how significant is the difference in value.  I've previously said that if there is a guaranteed future hall of famer at #25, I take him regardless of position (except maybe special teams).  However, how realistic is that?  If the BAP is a non-need and is only 1% better according to my scouts and there is a + or - 10% margin of error, then I'm passing on BAP for the need.  I think that is far more realistic or at least something closer to it than the first scenario.  Also, if there is a significant difference in value and I don't need the position, I look to trade down.  If one player is clearly better than everyone else, why wouldn't teams who need that position offer you an incredible deal for it?  You don't want to reach, but I also don't think players win games by sitting on the bench.  You win it by being on the field and you want the best possible team playing on the field.  Turning a weakness into a strength is the best way to improve a team quickly.  Changing a B into a B+ is a minor upgrade and won't win you many more games.  Changing an F into a B+ is huge and might make a big difference in your record.  If we are picking among B+ rated players, I want the one who upgrades the F.  It's an over simplification, but that's my basic philosophy.

As for positions off the table, I think they are few to none.  After taking Lawrence at #1, I would say for all practical purposes, quarterback would be off the board with an early pick.  Kicker, punter and long snapper are off the table, but that probably goes without saying.

The next consideration would be cornerback.  Our biggest free agent signing was at cornerback and we also have a top 10 pick at the position.  I even like Sidney Jones as a number 3.  I wouldn't go as far as to take cornerback off the table, but there would have to be a clear value difference for me to select it early.

I like our current wide receivers.  However, some are a little unproven, Shenault has a history of injuries and Marvin Jones is 31 so he won't be here forever.  I would be ok with taking one, although I would hope that it is value driving it.  

I like our starting running back.  However, you do need two running backs.  I know that I wrote a message bashing the possible selection of Etienne and maybe I'll scale back my criticism a little.  I watched some of his video and I do like him as a player and think he would be a good compliment to Robinson.  I just think there are other positions that would likely help us win more games, at least at the #25 spot.

---