Best Player Available. Period. | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Best Player Available. Period.

D

DominateTheLine

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Alright guys, so the questions about the first pick have been answered, and one thing has become abundantly clear. Moreso than we have seen in the past with this franchise, this front office is going to draft for VALUE. They were in a tough spot with the first pick in a relatively weak draft for franchise players, but did not play games and signed the guy who was number one on our board. This was ont only to address the glaring need, because if it was they could gone in other directions. This was their number one guy on the board. PERIOD.

This brings me to my point. Teams that are competing for the playoffs can afford to draft for needs to fill the few holes they have to make the playoffs. This short-sighted approach will often times work for these teams, mainly because of all the good/great players surrounding them. This is not the type of team we have right now. When drafting to build a franchise, the positions that you draft for mean almost nothing. Keep in mind, I am saying almost because when you have a franchise player like Ronnie you do not want to tie up cap space on a single position or waste a players production on the bench for multiple years.

With that being said, this team is 10 starters away from being a great team. You can make the argument for any position needing an upgrade. LG, WR, TE, maybe QB, ILB, maybe OLB, CB, S. So, what does a smart front office do when they need that many positions and have 2-3 years to right the ship? They draft value, no matter the position. If you are expecting there to be a rational progression of positions being drafted this weekend, think again. They are going to draft the best players available, even if they have to sit behind someone for a year. That is how great teams are built, getting value and using that value one way or another in the future.

If we do indeed select a TE, WR, CB, or LG with our remaining earlier picks, it will not be to address the need in my opinion. It will be because that is the guy who presented the best value to our team at that pick. We need to think long-term here guys. All the arguments about not drafting a OLB because we have some good veterans does not make sense when you are thinking about 2-3 years from now. Get value, no matter the position, and you will have a successful team in a matter of years.

There will always be holes to fill, but when you draft for value and take the player you think will be the best overall producer, those holes are easier to fill and have a higher chance of succeeding when they are addressed. So, stop thinking about positions and start thinking about who the best players are. That will be the direction we are going to go in. Think about how mad the GB fans are usually on draft day, but then their team magically produces. If we draft for value, we are going to have a very successful draft class years down the line, and that will be how we get out of this hole that has been left behind by the failed administrations of the past.

Who do you guys think will present the best value throughout the draft in our slots independent of position?
 
Couldn't agree more...excellent post...and I think that we did have one huge glaring need that needed to be addressed and we did that with the #1 pick. Not only did we get our #1 guy, but that pick will allow us to do just what you're talking about...pluck some gems that slip through the cracks...
 
Some of the BPAs that I think could be there when we pick.

2A - Groves, Phillips, Sweed, Brohm, Mayo, Campbell

2B - James Hardy, Mario Manningham, Brandon Flowers, Cliff Avril

3 - Chilo Rachal, Earl Bennett, Martellus Bennett, Tavares Gooden, Chris Ellis, Charles Godfrey

If we could land two of those guys in those spots, I would be pretty happy.
 
Most "pure talent evaluators" would put McFadden at the top of the list --- certainly NOT Jake Long. If indeed Jake was at the “top” of our board, you can be assured need played a part in that placement. In addition, our RB stable discounts McFadden along with his off the field “issues.”

“BPA” is an entirely relative equation --- and no team in the NFL drafts exclusively on that subjective criteria with NO consideration given towards need. In fact, NEED plays a huge role in 80%+ of all picks. So you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise…

Just watch the draft and see --- teams makes choices based on what their primary needs are..
 
Now I want us to draft Hardy,Avril and Schuoning(sp?)in round 2 but we only have 2 picks.....so lets trdae JT for a 2nd and draft those 3 players....in rounds 3 and 4 then we go corner and TE.

Ozzy rules!!
 
It is true that alot of teams pick based on need, but we should not be one of those teams. A team in a position like ours does not have the luxury of picking on need. You know what our biggest position of need is right now? Overall talent.
 
Good post. The only minor quibble I have with it is that I don't believe Jake Long was the top player on our board. I know our FO said it was, but what would one expect them to say? He was 2nd, 3rd, or 4th? When you incorporate need in with the talent available he was a no-brainer.

I'm a strong believer in BPA. Think of it like decorating a new home. Two families have the same amount of money to furnish their new house. One family gets the best value out of every dollar they spend--getting good quality stuff but only buying it when it's on sale. So some things they do without in the beginning because the value isn't there. The other family buys what they think they need to have first, paying what they have to, and not getting the best value for their dollar.

There are only so many dollars, and only so many draft picks. Get the most value possible with every purchase, and in three years you will have the nicer home. Get the most value possible with every pick, and in three years you'll be in the playoffs.
 
Exactly, the home analogy makes sense. The question with this whole idea is, do you have the patience to see it through? I think the front office is too smart not to see it through, I just wish other fans would be able to have the vision to see 2-4 years down the road when many of the players we have are going to be gone.
 
I would love to see Groves at 2a and Cason at 2b, but i have doubts that groves will be there that late or that cason will be around at the end of round 2, meaning we might need to look elsewhere for 2a or possibly grab cason at this spot because CB is a pretty big need for da fins
 
i think some people complicate BPA sometimes, as simply, the Best player available. which it isnt.

BPA available is the best option for every team, whether in the gutter or in the playoffs. but BPA available is also BPA need. meaning if you need a S, CB, OG, DE, and ILB. you take the best available player at any of those positions, even though you may need a CB more then a DE an so on.

The Rankings of these players most the time are far to close to say, well we have a very good young RB right now and a hole at DE, but since Joe Blow the RB is our #32 ranked player and Blow Joe the DE is our #34 ranked player and there isnt much of a difference in our minds, we're still going to take the #32 ranked player which is a RB because hes simply the BPA.

so it is a mix between need and BPA, always. and it should be.
 
Nappy Roots said:
i think some people complicate BPA sometimes, as simply, the Best player available. which it isnt.

BPA available is the best option for every team, whether in the gutter or in the playoffs. but BPA available is also BPA need. meaning if you need a S, CB, OG, DE, and ILB. you take the best available player at any of those positions, even though you may need a CB more then a DE an so on.
Click to expand...

I see your point. But I don't think it's a case of complicating the issue, we might just disagree.

If the BPA in the third or fourth round is a RB, and our greater need is for a TE, I'm going with the better player. Not the better player at a position of need, the better player, period, which is what I believe the OP was saying.
 
Given the article stating the Phins board would be smaller than others, I have a feeling Parcells is one who sticks to what it there. So, if we need a cb and a rb is next on their list, they will take the rb. Parcells seems like a guy who sticks to a plan.
 
DominateTheLine said:
It is true that alot of teams pick based on need, but we should not be one of those teams. A team in a position like ours does not have the luxury of picking on need. You know what our biggest position of need is right now? Overall talent.
Click to expand...

Actually, your logic is a little upside down. Once a team is reasonably stocked position by position they have the luxury to pick a "non-need" for the sake of taking the better player --- even if that player falls in position of strength.

On the flip side, we do NOT have the luxury to take a RB because that's a team strength. We also have other areas of "relative strength" (DE, FB, C) and will not pander to those positions.

So our boards BPA's will be structured to fit our teams primary needs --- and yea, we have a number of primary needs so we have options, but not the flat-out luxury to pick ANYONE.
 
Myles Fynch said:
Good post. The only minor quibble I have with it is that I don't believe Jake Long was the top player on our board. I know our FO said it was, but what would one expect them to say? He was 2nd, 3rd, or 4th? When you incorporate need in with the talent available he was a no-brainer.

I'm a strong believer in BPA. Think of it like decorating a new home. Two families have the same amount of money to furnish their new house. One family gets the best value out of every dollar they spend--getting good quality stuff but only buying it when it's on sale. So some things they do without in the beginning because the value isn't there. The other family buys what they think they need to have first, paying what they have to, and not getting the best value for their dollar.

There are only so many dollars, and only so many draft picks. Get the most value possible with every purchase, and in three years you will have the nicer home. Get the most value possible with every pick, and in three years you'll be in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Of course, if the bed you covet does not go on sale for 2.5 years then the other family would have gotten much more value out of purchasing and using their bed to get comfortable nights sleeps while you tossed and turned on the hard floor - thus making the rest of your life less enjoyable. My guess is that you would then go pay a premium to end that pain, thus not only negating the value, but making you worse off than the other family since you went so long without having a comfortable night's sleep and ultimately ended up paying the price anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom