Meth.  Lot's of meth.

 

LOL

---

Exactly what I was saying. It was fine to pick a defensive lineman with the tenth pick in the 2010 draft. The mistake was which lineman we picked. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

If you look back at the draft in 2010, no DT available at #10 was worth drafting. Focusing on a need only works if the talent meets the value of the pick. Alualu was probably the best choice if you're going to draft a DT at 10, But that doesn't make it the right pick.

---

Absolutely NOT.

 

You pick the best player available regardless of position with each and every draft pick.

 

This is the only way you are ever going to reach competitive strength in the NFL.

 

Disagree.  As I've stated before, if you have a franchise QB already on your roster who is young and the need at QB is last on your list and you have a DE and that is number one on your need list and the QB is rated 8th and DE is rated 9th then you take the DE.  This is logical and it combines need with BAP.  I've stated this several times yet you never seem to respond to it.

---

Over the long run...

 

This is true.  If you have a so-called stockpiled position, you have valuable trade material.

 

Pass on the better player simply because of need, and you're giving up talent and value.

 

Again, depends on how great the need is vs. where you rank the players on your BAP list.  Taking 5 QB's in a row because they are the highest rated player is not a recipe for success.  

---

Caldwell said something last year that made perfect sense. Often, their are multiple players available at the time of the pick that have the same, or nearly the same, grade. Need at that point becomes an important variable to consider. He also said something to the effect of that it would make no sense to draft 6 RBs.


We the fans see a top prospects draft list in a forced ranking format. Sometimes we fail to recognize that although a prospect's forced ranking may appear much better than another player (ie. ranked 155th vs. 168th), their actual ranking of projected performance level in the NFL may be the same.

 

Thank you.  

---

Again, depends on how great the need is vs. where you rank the players on your BAP list. Taking 5 QB's in a row because they are the highest rated player is not a recipe for success.

That would never happen though.

---

That would never happen though.

 

It could happen with 2.  Point being, having a strategy that is black and white is a recipe for failure.  As some others said anyways, talent evaluation trumps the strategy which is way more important.  If you pick BAP every time, but suck at scouting then it doesn't really matter.

---

Disagree. As I've stated before, if you have a franchise QB already on your roster who is young and the need at QB is last on your list and you have a DE and that is number one on your need list and the QB is rated 8th and DE is rated 9th then you take the DE. This is logical and it combines need with BAP. I've stated this several times yet you never seem to respond to it.

BAP isn't about about ranking, it's about the player's grade. If the two players have the same grade, using BAP to select one over the other is moot. However, if the one player has a grade that would benefit a team more than another player, you take the better player.

---

Again, depends on how great the need is vs. where you rank the players on your BAP list.  Taking 5 QB's in a row because they are the highest rated player is not a recipe for success.  

 

That's about as reasonable as expecting to be hit with lightning five times on the same weekend.

 

I don't subscribe the thought that there are degrees of need.  To me, you do or don't.  But yes, I do agree it depends on grading and what is considered to be "relatively" equal.  If the value is outside whatever that "relatively equal" range (no matter how marginally,) I'd still go with the higher rated player.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

It could happen with 2. Point being, having a strategy that is black and white is a recipe for failure. As some others said anyways, talent evaluation trumps the strategy which is way more important. If you pick BAP every time, but suck at scouting then it doesn't really matter.

But 2 is different than 5. Most positions have 2 starters and all have a backup, so drafting two players in the same position isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look at the Redskins drafting RGIII and Cousins in the same draft. They were the same position, but were drafted for different spots on the depth chart.


You don't pass on Denard 2.0 in the draft just bc you have 1.0, if the 2.0 would be an upgrade over the 1.0. If you drafted 1.0 in the third round and 2.0 is in the fifth round of the same draft, why didn't you draft 2.0 in the third instead?


BAP is about not passing on talent when it is available.

---

But 2 is different than 5. Most positions have 2 starters and all have a backup, so drafting two players in the same position is t necessarily a bad thing.

 

I hope we are fortunate enough to draft 2 QBs.  That's not unreasonable, given we could use a long term solution at starter and backup.

 

In a perfect world we find our QB this offseason, I wouldn't expect Henne or Gabbert to be here as the backup very long (and one will likely be gone this offseason anyway.)

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

BAP isn't about about ranking, it's about the player's grade. If the two players have the same grade, using BAP to select one over the other is moot. However, if the one player has a grade that would benefit a team more than another player, you take the better player.

And there is the difference in what you are saying. If he benefits the team more then another player is just a different way of saying the need is stronger.

---

I hope we are fortunate enough to draft 2 QBs. That's not unreasonable, given we could use a long term solution at starter and backup.


In a perfect world we find our QB this offseason, I wouldn't expect Henne or Gabbert to be here as the backup very long (and one will likely be gone this offseason anyway.)

Sure. Back ups are also easy to find in free agency.

---

But 2 is different than 5. Most positions have 2 starters and all have a backup, so drafting two players in the same position isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look at the Redskins drafting RGIII and Cousins in the same draft. They were the same position, but were drafted for different spots on the depth chart.


You don't pass on Denard 2.0 in the draft just bc you have 1.0, if the 2.0 would be an upgrade over the 1.0. If you drafted 1.0 in the third round and 2.0 is in the fifth round of the same draft, why didn't you draft 2.0 in the third instead?


BAP is about not passing on talent when it is available.

Again, it all depends. One guy is rated 95 and his need is last on the list for your team and another guy rated 93 and the need is number one on your team. I would probably take the guy rated 93 because of the need. And Caldwell would probably agree.

---

And there is the difference in what you are saying. If he benefits the team more then another player is just a different way of saying the need is stronger.

That's why I've been sayin the only need is talent. More talent benefits the team more, which means the need for that player is stronger. Position has nothing to do with it.

---

Sure. Back ups are also easy to find in free agency.

 

But they're cheaper to draft.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Again, it all depends. One guy is rated 95 and his need is last on the list for your team and another guy rated 93 and the need is number one on your team. I would probably take the guy rated 93 because of the need. And Caldwell would probably agree.

Like I said in a previous reply, if they are graded the same, using BAP to select one over the other is moot. There isn't enough difference between the two to justify one over the other, that's why they'd be in the same tier.

---

I hope we are fortunate enough to draft 2 QBs.  That's not unreasonable, given we could use a long term solution at starter and backup.

 

In a perfect world we find our QB this offseason, I wouldn't expect Henne or Gabbert to be here as the backup very long (and one will likely be gone this offseason anyway.)

 

I think drafting two Quarterbacks is a good idea.  The team went far too long without drafting any Quarterbacks.  Even if we find the answer, and a backup, I hope in a couple of years we take a developmental guy in the 2nd (or even in the 1st if Caldwell really likes him) or 3rd.  The situation we want here I think is where we don't have to worry about where our next QB is coming from -- because we already have the guy, and the guy who will replace them one day.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

BAP isn't about about ranking, it's about the player's grade. If the two players have the same grade, using BAP to select one over the other is moot. However, if the one player has a grade that would benefit a team more than another player, you take the better player.

 

Benefit the team more?  I think you could easily make the argument that a guy with a slightly better grade riding the bench would benefit your team less than the guy with a slightly lower grade who is filling a gaping hole.  But thats an endless argument not worth continuing.

 

How bout this.... what if you think the guy with the higher grade would still be available in the next round?  Maybe he is a smaller school player that you've scouted intensely but dont believe many others know about.  Maybe its a slight gamble, but if he was there a round later, you'd actually be maximizing your draft value by not going with BAP.  You could argue this a rare occurence but routinely in Gene's drafts I would ask myself this question.  Even if the man was drafting based on his own BAP draft board, he was clearly leaving value on the table by taking guys 1 or 2 rounds ahead of where he could have grabbed them.  If the entire point of BAP is to maximize value, its not enough to follow your own board, but to have an idea what the consensus is for other boards.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

Benefit the team more?  I think you could easily make the argument that a guy with a slightly better grade riding the bench would benefit your team less than the guy with a slightly lower grade who is filling a gaping hole.  But thats an endless argument not worth continuing.

 

How bout this.... what if you think the guy with the higher grade would still be available in the next round?  Maybe he is a smaller school player that you've scouted intensely but dont believe many others know about.  Maybe its a slight gamble, but if he was there a round later, you'd actually be maximizing your draft value by not going with BAP.  You could argue this a rare occurence but routinely in Gene's drafts I would ask myself this question.  Even if the man was drafting based on his own BAP draft board, he was clearly leaving value on the table by taking guys 1 or 2 rounds ahead of where he could have grabbed them.  If the entire point of BAP is to maximize value, its not enough to follow your own board, but to have an idea what the consensus is for other boards.

 

 

If he is on the bench, he probably wasn't the best player available to begin with. But, if he truly is a 93 rating, he would be behind a Hall of Fame caliber player. There are multiple positions on the field, you aren't drafting a guy rated that high and placing him on the bench.

 

Of course you could do that. If you go back to 2000 to the draft, you aren't drafting Tom Brady in the 1st round because you know you can get him in round 5 (and some of round 6). With time travel out of the question, maximizing value definitely goes beyond your draft board.

---