Draft player or need?

[j-off-her-doll]

Shula was a bumbling fool by the 1990s. He quickly abandoned everything that made him a HOF coach after drafting Marino. Unfortunately/fortunately, Marino was great enough to make things seem better than they were. We were toward the top of the league in rushing attempts and D almost every season before we drafted Marino. After that . . . complete 180.

 

[jlfin]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the point of my post. Stay focused we are discussing need vs bpa.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

I'll take whichever conversational detours I like. Thanks.

As to YOUR point, it's simplistic. It's been covered on these forums, but teams use horizontal draft boards. Between Sammy Watkins and Greg Robinson, who is better? Which would be BPA? You can make cases for either, but ultimately, you're going to draft either based on what you're trying to accomplish within your system.

If you're looking for a RB and an OT and the best RB available and the best OT available rate out similarly, you look at who you project to be available at your next pick at those positions. For example: I can draft Lewan or Hill at 19, but drop off after Hill is significantly steeper than the drop off at OT after Lewan. More specifically, you're drafting guys who will look good in YOUR system.

It's rare that there is a player available who is just clearly better than all the other players available. This is talk you get between fans that say I want all the best guys on my team' - without realizing that most of these players' success will be heavily dependent upon the system they're drafted to. Good teams draft players who will look better in their system than they would in most other systems. THAT'S how you get value - not by being the "smartest" kid at the lunch table.

 

[jlfin]

You have a reading comprehension problem. Obviously, there are guys in different positions who have a similar grade. In that instance, all things being equal you draft for need/ fit. My point (if you bothered to read my entire post) was that you dont REACH simply to fill a need.
As to Shula being a bumbling fool, that is just a moronic statement from you. Shula clearly lost some of his passion when his 1st wife Dorothy battled (and ultimately succumbed) to breast cancer. He kept much of that private.
The fact that you would take such a classless cheap shot at such an honorable man says a lot about you.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

I read your entire post. It said you draft BPA, gave benefits for stockpiling talent, and gave an example of a team drafting bad players too early.

The point is that need vs BPA is not the correct argument. The reason good teams seem to continue to find good players - in all rounds - is that they have a clear vision of what they need out of a player. You don't get guys like Richard Sherman and Kam Chancellor late in the draft, because everyone else just missed out on these great players. You get them, because you understand their strengths and weaknesses and know how they'll work in your system and which other types of players you'll need to surround them with.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/40312/post-draft-grades-seattle-seahawks

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/64314/an-early-word-on-2012-nfl-draft-grades

People RARELY accuse the Seahawks of drafting the BPA. By now, people are hesitant to criticize them, because they keep turning out some of the best players in the league. They're not drafting for "need" either. They're not plugging holes. They're drafting specific types of players that fit their system. If you have a clear vision and any type of talent at the GM position, you're going to have successful drafts (assuming that vision is worth a damn).

 

[Mudder1310]

I think everyone panned them taking Bruce Irvin so early, but he a major contributor on the Seahawk front. They've got some draft mojo going for sure.

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

In general, I feel like you draft the best player. Not going best player has really hurt Miami over the years. We can give a lot of examples, but a few that stand out are passing on Vince Wilfork for Vernon Carey, Fletcher over Drew Brees, trading out of R1 and missing on Randy Moss, Ted Ginn over Willis/Revis etc.

In this draft, I think Miami can fill their offensive line needs in R2-R4 and go best player in R1 (Ebron, Mosley, Benjamin).

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

Unless Miami develops a clear vision of what they want the team to look like, this argument is kind of . . . moot. You draft players who fit what you're doing. It's the reason Seattle has the best secondary with one 1st RD player, two 5th RD players, and one 6th RD player starting in their secondary. When you look along the Seattle D, the high draft picks are few and far between. The D-line with its amazing pass rushing depth doesn't have a 1st RD pick; it does have multiple UDFA's. When you look at the LB unit, you have one 1st RD pick in Bruce Irvin, a 2nd in Wagner, and a 4th in Wright. So this D that is as good as any in recent memory has two 1st RD picks and one 2nd. How does that happen? Are they finding gems that everyone missed out on? To some extent, yes, but the bigger story is that they have a clear vision of what they need a player to do well, so they can take flawed prospects (Richard Sherman btw was abused during Senior Bowl week) and make them All Pros or huge contributors in that system. It's the reason every year, people are really blah about Seattle's drafts. They note all the areas where their picks struggled and talk about how they reached on almost every pick. The exception would be the Okung/Thomas draft. It's the reason teams try to copy their big DB approach and end up looking like fools, because their big CB's don't seem to play as well for some reason.

I was really hoping that Miami would find a way to poach someone from the Seattle organization this off season. There's more than one way to get it done, but it has to be a physical brand, and you have to have a clear vision for what you're doing. Our entire organization seems to stumble through everything we do without any direction.

Very well said. I didn't realize how well Seattle has done in the middle rounds. That is outstanding. I do remember Jimmy Johnson in Dallas finding those quick linebackers who could cover in mid to later rounds. At that time, most teams were going bigger at that position so their "fit" was against the grain.

I know this might sound funny in a passing era, but going agains the grain might be building a physical offensive line that can pound people in the running game and, at the very least, do better than league average in short-yardage situations. It seems NE is trending that way a bit.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

We were toward the top of the league in rushing attempts and D almost every season before we drafted Marino. After that . . . complete 180.

No kidding. It was driving me nuts. I have no idea how Shula is credited with adapting his game during the Marino years instead of throwing away all the proven criteria.

In the 1994 playoff game at San Diego, we ran the ball 8 times to 40 for the Chargers, despite Miami leading virtually the entire game, often by wide margin. The announcers weren't mentioning it but I was charting it. I was throwing my pen against the wall as the gap widened. It made for an easy halftime bet on San Diego but as a Dolphin fan I was disgusted.

Anyway, I don't believe in drafting for your system. That adds another subjective variable. Seattle may be a convenient focal point now but there aren't too many examples. I really think it's overblown anyways. They happened to find terrific players who would fit in virtually any scheme but since they are thriving all the arrows are pointing upward and they can take credit for drafting toward their formula.

Best player available is as close to lack of decision making as possible. The problem with drafting for need is that it's too easy to convince yourself that the need guy is nearby the best player. The general manager will rationalize that the left tackle is virtually the same caliber as that cornerback when really the margin is quite distinct, and there would be no question about it other than the desperate need for the specific position.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

No kidding. It was driving me nuts. I have no idea how Shula is credited with adapting his game during the Marino years instead of throwing away all the proven criteria.

In the 1994 playoff game at San Diego, we ran the ball 8 times to 40 for the Chargers, despite Miami leading virtually the entire game, often by wide margin. The announcers weren't mentioning it but I was charting it. I was throwing my pen against the wall as the gap widened. It made for an easy halftime bet on San Diego but as a Dolphin fan I was disgusted.

Anyway, I don't believe in drafting for your system. That adds another subjective variable. Seattle may be a convenient focal point now but there aren't too many examples. I really think it's overblown anyways. They happened to find terrific players who would fit in virtually any scheme but since they are thriving all the arrows are pointing upward and they can take credit for drafting toward their formula.

Best player available is as close to lack of decision making as possible. The problem with drafting for need is that it's too easy to convince yourself that the need guy is nearby the best player. The general manager will rationalize that the left tackle is virtually the same caliber as that cornerback when really the margin is quite distinct, and there would be no question about it other than the desperate need for the specific position.

I remember watching that game with my dad at a Round Table Pizza is Vista, CA. I took that loss pretty hard for a 10 year old.

Obviously, there's going to be a fair amount of subjectivity when evaluating players, and I can appreciate the desire to limit it. But I believe the stronger the vision for your team (this obviously highlights the importance of a working relationship with HC and GM), the less you submit your process to subjectivity.

Rather than viewing a see of players, you're looking to identify particular traits that your system needs to succeed. Generally speaking, I think good teams do this well at a handful of positions - rather than for their entire team. The Packers did it really well with WR's, the Steelers with LB's (until recently). You're not going to get Calvin Johnson in the 2nd or 3rd, and you're not going to get Derrick Thomas in the later rounds. But if you can identify the key traits that make your system tick, you can forgive flaws and accentuate strengths. To me, that's how you get the greatest value out of the draft. You're not going to get Revis in the 5th. If you watched the Senior Bowl and told me that Richard Sherman would be the best CB in the NFL, I'd have told you to put down the paint thinner.

Especially with late-RD draft picks, all these guys have glaring flaws/reasons to fail. Without a clear vision for what you want for your team and out of each position, you're talking a feather and a lottery ticket. On that note, I don't believe in drafting for need. I believe in acquiring the players who best fit your vision for your team - different from BPA, because the vision/system is the alpha.