(04-22-2024, 09:07 AM)Mikey Wrote:

(04-21-2024, 07:25 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: Ive said many times there are instances you dont take the top guy, its just rare becuase most teams arent stacked to a point where they wont need a good player at a position this year or next.  Some GM's just fill holes for need and some take the top guy even if its not as big of a need.  There are BPA type GMs and there are needs based drafting GMs.  

Thats bolded isnt debateable either because we dont know what their board looked like and dont know if we took the top guy or not. 

 Im going to believe they took the top guy because neither TE or RB were a bigger need than G.  You could still debate the Strange and Bigsby picks and come back in a year and check it out but we just dont know if they truly were the top guy available on their board.  CB is the biggest need on the team but if Bowers falls im taking him even though i dont think TE is a huge need.  If i have one of the pass rushers available thats higher on my board over a CB ill take them as well or OT etc. even though corner i feel is the biggest need.  Some GMs wouldnt do it because they dont think its a bigger need.  Some on here have said they dont want Bowers because its not a need.  That is needs vs PBA drafting.  Thats the debate.

It absolutely is debatable. We may not know what their board looked like, but you can say whether a pick was an excessive reach or not. I can all but say absolutely that Strange and/or Bigsby were not the top guy on their board. But, when their time came to pick, the team saw positional value, roster need, and remaining board strategy as ways to dismiss other players on their board. We have no idea if they attempted to trade back, or had offers from other teams to trade into our picks. Could we have landed either guy if we moved off the picks? Maybe not. Could we have picked more immediate needs that might not have been ranked on our board as highly? Maybe.

Any and all of these factors help shape the argument whether a pick was a reach or not. We don't need the absolute for a debate. If we had a picture of their board, a statement from all the other 31 owners regarding their strategies with respect to each player, and a full foretelling of their future performance it would simply be statement of fact, and not any debate as to whether the selection was a reach or a savvy choice.

It's not a reach if they had them as the top players on their board when they picked, which I think they were.  That's the only way those picks make sense.  We don't know what their board looked like though so it's not debatable.  If they did pass up other players at different positions that were higher on their board because they thought RB and TE were bigger needs they will be fired in short order if they continue with that draft strategy.

---