(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?

I would determine best available player in the following way: 

1) Assign a point value to the player based on talent, production, etc.  Just the pure value of the player regardless of position or team need.   
2) Add fractional points for positional value.  For example, CBs get more value than safeties.  LT gets more value than RG.  And so forth.
3) Add fractional points for team need.  "Team need" can range from "We are weak at that position" to "We want to help TL succeed"  to "this guy fits our system."  


Rank the players using the total points, and pick the highest rated player who is not a QB, punter, kicker, or long snapper.  

This is a hybrid system that combines traditional "best available player" with team needs and positional value. 

Right now, I would rank "positional value" in the following order: 
1) Quarterback.
2) Offensive line
3) Defensive line
4) CB
5) WR, RB, TE.
6) Linebacker
7) Safety

I would rank "team needs" in the following order: 
1) Offensive line (even if they sit on the bench for a year)
2) TE
3) RB (we need more than the one we have)
4) Safety

---