Hypothetical Draft Scenario

[Padfoot]

Say we draft Chris Long and intend to take a tackle with our 32nd pick.

But an unexpected defensive player of great value somehow drops to us at 32.

I would certainly argue that LT is a more pressing need than a corner, linebacker, or d-lineman. However, if the value is great enough, is it worth taking the value at the expense of the need?

And if you think it depends on the player, which player would it take for you to think we should take the value over the need?

Just curious as to what everyone's opinion is on this, because I certainly can't decide.

 

[Gardenhead]

I believe in drafting the best player availaible 95% of the time.

If we get Chris Long and a stud CB is sitting there at #32, if that CB is rated higher than the T, get the CB. Get the tackle with the second 2nd rounder.

 

[PhinsRock]

If we always take BPA, we end up with a boatload of guys at 1 or more positions and fail to address the needs of this team. There comes a point you must fix your worst area of need, which is definitely the OL. Fail to fix that in this OL wealthy draft, and you've doomed us to a couple more years of the first 1-3 draft picks.

 

[FinFanatic80]

Agreed.

 

[Gardenhead]

If we always take BPA, we end up with a boatload of guys at 1 or more positions and fail to address the needs of this team. There comes a point you must fix your worst area of need, which is definitely the OL. Fail to fix that in this OL wealthy draft, and you've doomed us to a couple more years of the first 1-3 draft picks.

That's why I said BPA 95% of the time.

I see nothing wrong with choosing a DE with the first pick and a CB with the second pick. I'm not advocating taking 2 DE's with our first 2 picks.

I agree that we need OL help, but we need A LOT of help at A LOT of positions!

 

[3rdandinches]

The problem with taking C.Long 1st is when that 2nd pick comes if D.Conner/K.Phillips/a top rate CB/or Hardy is there you take one over OT. Now at the 2b pick it's someone else rated higher than the left over OT. Now at round 3 OT's are slim pickings but a TE or SS or whoever is there, now what. Do you take the third rate OT because we need him or the higher rated player again. You can see a domino effect happening, it's great to pick up great value in a few positions but our greatest need never gets addressed properly. Taking J.Long 1st solves our greatest need and now feel free to get BPA at each proceeding pick.

 

[Padfoot]

The problem with taking C.Long 1st is when that 2nd pick comes if D.Conner/K.Phillips/a top rate CB/or Hardy is there you take one over OT. Now at the 2b pick it's someone else rated higher than the left over OT. Now at round 3 OT's are slim pickings but a TE or SS or whoever is there, now what. Do you take the third rate OT because we need him or the higher rated player again. You can see a domino effect happening, it's great to pick up great value in a few positions but our greatest need never gets addressed properly. Taking J.Long 1st solves our greatest need and now feel free to get BPA at each proceeding pick.

This isn't about taking Chris Long first, that's just the premise of the hypothetical.

 

[jim1]

Say we draft Chris Long and intend to take a tackle with our 32nd pick.

But an unexpected defensive player of great value somehow drops to us at 32.

I would certainly argue that LT is a more pressing need than a corner, linebacker, or d-lineman. However, if the value is great enough, is it worth taking the value at the expense of the need?

And if you think it depends on the player, which player would it take for you to think we should take the value over the need?

Just curious as to what everyone's opinion is on this, because I certainly can't decide.

Ain't no better value than OT at #32, in all likelihood.