People have draft ideologies.  They stick to their principles.  Just like this idea that you would never draft a RB in the first round.  It's just dogma.  There are too many other factors that go into that decision to make a blanket statement like that.

As I said, exceptions exist.

I'd take a RB in the first round if my roster was well rounded with starters at positions of greater value, and a player I deemed "very rare" in talent was available at RB. 

Perfect storm scenarios alter typical methodology. 

I'll leave it alone for a while after this post, but all I'm trying to get across is that GMs pass up the top guy on their board all the time to select a player more valuable to their roster needs -  and I don't get why ppl continually think that it is uncommon or bad. 
It's normal. 

Posters tell me "GM so-and-so would NEVER do that." 
Really?  If I can show you 4 examples of that GM trading UP to select a player his roster needed, why would you think he's above seeking out needs in the draft? 
I just don't understand the odd misperception that crowd is clinging to, but whatevs. I'll put down my torch and get off my soapbox until next year's draft. 

---

More On Topic:

I'm very excited to see Etienne on the field this year. 
My travel schedule is light this Fall, so I'll get to actually attend most of the home games in OCT/NOV/DEC  
Can't wait for us all to have some good stuff to talk about here. 
Drinking the kool-aid by the gulp right now.

I think we all know this, those are usually the ones looking for another job in short order, as Arians has said.  Then there are soe that stick to their board and take the top guy even if its not a big need, as Pederson has stated. That's what most of us hasn't wanted the team to do and it's a breath of fresh air to see this regime not do it like Dave did.  We lost Yawn and Ramsey and Dave went and drafted CJ and Chaisson to fill those needs when you have much better players sitting there.  I'm not buying those guys were at the top of Dave's board when it was our pick, but it was the huge needs.  If you can take the best player each time when it's your pick the rest will work itself out

---

As I said, exceptions exist.

I'd take a RB in the first round if my roster was well rounded with starters at positions of greater value, and a player I deemed "very rare" in talent was available at RB. 

Perfect storm scenarios alter typical methodology. 

I'll leave it alone for a while after this post, but all I'm trying to get across is that GMs pass up the top guy on their board all the time to select a player more valuable to their roster needs -  and I don't get why ppl continually think that it is uncommon or bad. 
It's normal. 

Posters tell me "GM so-and-so would NEVER do that." 
Really?  If I can show you 4 examples of that GM trading UP to select a player his roster needed, why would you think he's above seeking out needs in the draft? 
I just don't understand the odd misperception that crowd is clinging to, but whatevs. I'll put down my torch and get off my soapbox until next year's draft. 

---

More On Topic:

I'm very excited to see Etienne on the field this year. 
My travel schedule is light this Fall, so I'll get to actually attend most of the home games in OCT/NOV/DEC  
Can't wait for us all to have some good stuff to talk about here. 
Drinking the kool-aid by the gulp right now.

I think we all know this, those are usually the ones looking for another job in short order, as Arians has said.  Then there are soe that stick to their board and take the top guy even if its not a big need, as Pederson has stated. That's what most of us hasn't wanted the team to do and it's a breath of fresh air to see this regime not do it like Dave did.  We lost Yawn and Ramsey and Dave went and drafted CJ and Chaisson to fill those needs when you have much better players sitting there.  I'm not buying those guys were at the top of Dave's board when it was our pick, but it was the huge needs.  If you can take the best player each time when it's your pick the rest will work itself out

A. Keim and Arians traded up to take a player to replace Mathieu when he tore his ACL and declined - so that doesn't fit with any notion that Arians doesn't address needs in drafts. He does. (and that's just the first example that springs to mind with him)
 You're just interpreting some soundbite quote as gospel instead of treating it as a general comment on draft philosophy. 


B. Pederson ans Baalke drafted needs with every single early and mid pick except for Muma
In fact Fortner and Conner were blatant needs that they reached for according to many draft analysts as they were selected higher than nearly everyone projected them 
This regime was looking to replace Linder and obtain security for two injured running backs. They needed those guys, they targeted those needs in the draft and even reached a little bit for them. 
Maybe they didn't do it as badly as Caldwell, but it's the same thing. They were just (hopefully) smarter about not reaching too far. We'll see. 

I'm not going to debate it further. Let's just move on in disagreement. I don't need to be right or wrong here, and you clearly won't change your opinion. I'd rather the topic return to focus on Etienne.

---

I think you are also taking BAP too literally.

You can have multiple players rated very close, like a tier of players, with their position on the draft board possibly being a slight difference on how an individual scout rates a player.

The point of BAP is that if a particular position of need isn't rated at a tier around your draft position, you don't take a player that is rated significantly below the talent level just to fit a need. If you can't trade down, you take a guy who may not be a need but could potentially be an upgrade at a position which could give you trade opportunities down the line.

Needs drafting is when you take a player graded significantly lower that the talent you have graded around your pick and you are willing to pass on those players and rather pick a player graded at a lower level because he is the next highest rated player at your position of need.

For example: You are picking 15th and need a receiver. Say all the receivers graded to be worth the 15th pick are off the board and the next best WR you have graded in the top of the 2nd RD. BAP would pick a different position rated around the 15th pick. A needs drafter would just take the 2nd RD graded receiver at that pick if they are unable to trade down.

No, they would simply look at a different position of need.  Needs drafters appreciate value too.

Needs drafters get fixated on their biggest need and will sacrifice value to fill that need.

Needs drafters are notorious for reaching for players, not getting value.

They get scared the player will come off the board before their next pick and take him too early without getting value. This happens every year with need focused drafters.

---

You see this needs drafting over value all the time when there is a particular position a lot of teams need.

When the top players come off the board you will see the first reach at the position then the next thing you know there is a run at the position with it ending with some guys being over drafted by multiple rounds because the needs drafters panic.

This happens often in the draft and that leaves the BAP drafters get extra value at their picks.

---

I think we all know this, those are usually the ones looking for another job in short order, as Arians has said.  Then there are soe that stick to their board and take the top guy even if its not a big need, as Pederson has stated. That's what most of us hasn't wanted the team to do and it's a breath of fresh air to see this regime not do it like Dave did.  We lost Yawn and Ramsey and Dave went and drafted CJ and Chaisson to fill those needs when you have much better players sitting there.  I'm not buying those guys were at the top of Dave's board when it was our pick, but it was the huge needs.  If you can take the best player each time when it's your pick the rest will work itself out

A. Keim and Arians traded up to take a player to replace Mathieu when he tore his ACL and declined - so that doesn't fit with any notion that Arians doesn't address needs in drafts. He does. (and that's just the first example that springs to mind with him)
 You're just interpreting some soundbite quote as gospel instead of treating it as a general comment on draft philosophy. 


B. Pederson ans Baalke drafted needs with every single early and mid pick except for Muma
In fact Fortner and Conner were blatant needs that they reached for according to many draft analysts as they were selected higher than nearly everyone projected them 
This regime was looking to replace Linder and obtain security for two injured running backs. They needed those guys, they targeted those needs in the draft and even reached a little bit for them. 
Maybe they didn't do it as badly as Caldwell, but it's the same thing. They were just (hopefully) smarter about not reaching too far. We'll see. 

I'm not going to debate it further. Let's just move on in disagreement. I don't need to be right or wrong here, and you clearly won't change your opinion. I'd rather the topic return to focus on Etienne.

It's called when BPA meets need, it happens.  Just because you draft a guy that fits a need doesn't mean you didn't follow and trust your board.  When players keep coming off the board and a guy falls and he is at the top of your board and he fits a need why not trade up if you have him rated high enough and the picks to do so.

---

A. Keim and Arians traded up to take a player to replace Mathieu when he tore his ACL and declined - so that doesn't fit with any notion that Arians doesn't address needs in drafts. He does. (and that's just the first example that springs to mind with him)
 You're just interpreting some soundbite quote as gospel instead of treating it as a general comment on draft philosophy. 


B. Pederson ans Baalke drafted needs with every single early and mid pick except for Muma
In fact Fortner and Conner were blatant needs that they reached for according to many draft analysts as they were selected higher than nearly everyone projected them 
This regime was looking to replace Linder and obtain security for two injured running backs. They needed those guys, they targeted those needs in the draft and even reached a little bit for them. 
Maybe they didn't do it as badly as Caldwell, but it's the same thing. They were just (hopefully) smarter about not reaching too far. We'll see. 

I'm not going to debate it further. Let's just move on in disagreement. I don't need to be right or wrong here, and you clearly won't change your opinion. I'd rather the topic return to focus on Etienne.

It's called when BPA meets need, it happens.  Just because you draft a guy that fits a need doesn't mean you didn't follow and trust your board.  When players keep coming off the board and a guy falls and he is at the top of your board and he fits a need why not trade up if you have him rated high enough and the picks to do so.

You are wasting your breath.

If they don't draft in the perfect order of the speculated draft chart for the team it's means they are basing their draft., regardless of how similarly the options at that pick are rated and Just view a linear progression of value with no wiggle room, with the assumption they you have more insight and understanding their process than the actual professional drafters.

I can explain and show multiple examples until you are blue in the face of draft picks being completely taken off the board way before their consensus value. It is called reaching in-case you are unfamiliar with that term

It doesn't matter.

No matter how factual the evidence is, if it doesn't fit their pre conceived shallow notions of how the draft should work based on their imagination and pure speculation, you might as well be speaking speaking with a brick wall.

They aren't dealing with reality. Just dealing with the way they wished it all would work.

.It's called being hard headed and having shallow understandings of how things actually work in a business world plus being caught up in their own hubris.

---