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.

 

Notice I said defensive lineman, not tackle. JPP is also a defensive lineman. Our next four picks were defensive ends.

---

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.

 

You don't take the better player if you don't need him. What if the better player is a left tackle? You don't pick him because you don't need him.

---

You don't take the better player if you don't need him. What if the better player is a left tackle? You don't pick him because you don't need him.

You don't need better players?

---

Notice I said defensive lineman, not tackle. JPP is also a defensive lineman. Our next four picks were defensive ends.

 

It doesn't work that way. That's like saying there are offensive linemen, receivers, and backs on offense and defensive linemen, linebackers, and the secondary on defense. There are more than 6 positions...

---

You don't need better players?

 

You don't need a left tackle, so a left tackle would be a wasted pick no matter how good he is.

 

What you want are better players at the positions you need. If Player A and Player B are the same grade and Player A is a left tackle, you pick Player B.

---

You don't need a left tackle, so a left tackle would be a wasted pick no matter how good he is.


What you want are better players at the positions you need. If Player A and Player B are the same grade and Player A is a left tackle, you pick Player B.

Unless player B is Clowney right? Then we take player C?

---

Unless player B is Clowney right? Then we take player C?

 

If I was a GM, I would include character in a player's grade, so he would not be graded the same as Player A.

---

You don't need a left tackle, so a left tackle would be a wasted pick no matter how good he is.

 

What you want are better players at the positions you need. If Player A and Player B are the same grade and Player A is a left tackle, you pick Player B.

So in one post your are looking at "defensive linemen" and the next you are looking at "left tackle." Stop flip-flopping your arguments.

---

So in one post your are looking at "defensive linemen" and the next you are looking at "left tackle." Stop flip-flopping your arguments.

 

LOL

 

We actually needed to upgrade all four positions on the defensive line, so I was not flip flopping.

---

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.

Depends. Again, it isn't black and white. This is why Caldwell takes both into consideration. Position absolutely has something to do with it and how talented you are at that position.

---

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.

Ok and Caldwell would probably disagree with you. So would a lot of GM's. And others would agree with you. Ultimately it doesn't matter what your philosophy is. Matters how well you evaluate talent. To me, every situation is different and saying you will always do things one way regardless of circumstance as long as one player is rated higher regardless if it is small difference or large, you will draft one way no matter what. That kind of thinking in itself IMO is flawed.

---

But they're cheaper to draft.

Yes, but you also could use that pick on someone else. It's relative.

---

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.

How about round 2, 3, 4, etc... we only have one 1st round pick. You make it seem like we have 7 picks in the 1st round. So BAP only in the 1st than switch it up?

---

If I was a GM, I would include character in a player's grade, so he would not be graded the same as Player A.

Including character? Hmmm... that sounds like something our old GM did. How well did that work out?

---

How about round 2, 3, 4, etc... we only have one 1st round pick. You make it seem like we have 7 picks in the 1st round. So BAP only in the 1st than switch it up?

 

No, it's the same for every pick.

---

No, it's the same for every pick.

Okay, but 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders won't have 90+ ratings and many will sit on the bench if you have 3 guys better then them on the team already. This is where the strategy is really flawed in the later rounds.

---

Including character? Hmmm... that sounds like something our old GM did. How well did that work out?

 

Gene Smith's only mistake was overrating players with little or no talent. He could have drafted high characters guys every time without sacrificing talent if he wanted.

---

Okay, but 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders won't have 90+ ratings and many will sit on the bench if you have 3 guys better then them on the team already. This is where the strategy is really flawed in the later rounds.

 

Two things are wrong with this thinking. First, you usually are not that deep at a position where a player drafted doesn't supplant a depth player. The only way this happens is if you've been stockpiling talent. Second, you aren't looking for immediate starters out of every pick. If your 6th round pick is starting right away, you probably weren't strong in that position to begin with, the opposite of the first point.

---

Two things are wrong with this thinking. First, you usually are not that deep at a position where a player drafted doesn't supplant a depth player. The only way this happens is if you've been stockpiling talent. Second, you aren't looking for immediate starters out of every pick. If your 6th round pick is starting right away, you probably weren't strong in that position to begin with, the opposite of the first point.

As someone else mentioned this is an endless argument.

---