(04-25-2023, 07:46 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(04-24-2023, 08:18 PM)Eric1 Wrote: Ah yes of course, the classic "just trade back 4Head".

Anyways here's words out of Baalke's own mouth.

“You’re always balancing need and value, and when you say that, really, each year, the board is different. There are different strengths and weaknesses in every draft. Some years, the O-line, D-line are more prominent than maybe the edge guys or vice-versa, inside versus out. You’re still seeing the board based on value," Baalke said.

"Once you’ve got the board set on value, then you start looking at the needs. You don’t want to push players up the board value-wise just because you have a need at that postion. I’ve been doing this a while now, and most of the time, the value and need come together. Very few times have I looked at the board and said there’s just no value at the position of need we have. Sometimes it might be a card off, but it’s still close enough where you can address the need.”

"I’m just expecting that the board is going to fall a certain way ... years ofexperience, you tend to get a feel for how the board is going to fall. That doesn’t mean it’s going to fall; I’ve been sittng at 29 before and had nobody on the board we felt was valued at that level. That happens. We feel good about this group, this class, that there’s going to be enough depth in the draft, that there’s going to be a player at a need-position we have valued in that area that will be there when we pick.”

So as you can see, from his own words, even if there's a player that's graded slightly lower than another, but fits the need they'll still take him. It's almost like we've been telling you this for years... Crazy right?

It sounds to me like what Baalke is saying is, in spite of all the yearly arguing among ourselves about whether we should draft for need or draft for value, having to make that choice is actually very rare.  So we're arguing about something that rarely happens, at least according to Baalke.

Thing is, I don't know of many here (other than one) that is black and white need or value and never the twain shall meet. Most of us have been arguing that like Baalke, the aim is to find where need and value overlap. It's extremely rare that a GM is going to lean entirely toward need or entirely toward value. Those are the GMs that are going to be in trouble if their picks miss or their trades end up lopsided against them.

Are you saying that it is rare that a GM darfts where the value aligns with a position of need? Because to me that is the exact opposite of what Baalke suggested above.

---