ChitownPhins28
Basement Dweller
I feel like the concept of 'reaching' for a guy at a position that is a weak area of your current roster gets overblown from a negative standpoint.
Now, I do have to stipulate that there is a range that is sane and if youre giving away over 15 slots of value, youre probably reaching Too Much. Probably, unless the 'bad value' player has issues that were cleared up.
The motivation for me in making this thread is that I just think, more often than not, that you can find guys that fit your needs and are close enough in ratings to feel good about.
The idea of hardcore BPA when that player does almost nothing to fix your glaring holes is one that makes my head hurt.
Unless youre tanking and the salary cap in 2 years from now is more important than your chance to compete this year.
I just think the 'BPA' thing causes more bad fits and overall reaches than drafting for need, or at least closer to even.
Dolphins thought Iggy was total 'BPA' last year. That dude couldve been had later.
Sewell would be in the 'bpa reach' domain at 6, IMO. While OLine 'depth' is a need for us and a starting center is a need, using 6 for Sewell (who some are saying would be better as a guard?!? F THAT!).
WR was a legit need last year and given injury histories, it's still a very big need, especially for guys that are clear-cut difference-makers on the field.
How often is it when the available guy at your positions of need are Way Worse than guys at positions your team's roster is already strong at?
One of the exceptions to this is reaching for QB. That's a 'no-no', plain and simple.
You could say Juwan James is the example of a reach that turned out badly. However, his injury could've happened to any player and that's what began his diminishing returns.
I'll counter that he was an average NFL RT and contributed on par with his draft slot.
Had Miami not drafted James, what was a better outcome that we missed? We needed a RT. Who wouldve manned RT?
Part of it is the cost of FAs at positions.
In addendum to 'BPA' always has to be salary cap concerns. This points even more to the virtue of drafting closer to need and only going away if there's just garbage available at those spots.
Just a thread for discussion. There's nuance.
Now, I do have to stipulate that there is a range that is sane and if youre giving away over 15 slots of value, youre probably reaching Too Much. Probably, unless the 'bad value' player has issues that were cleared up.
The motivation for me in making this thread is that I just think, more often than not, that you can find guys that fit your needs and are close enough in ratings to feel good about.
The idea of hardcore BPA when that player does almost nothing to fix your glaring holes is one that makes my head hurt.
Unless youre tanking and the salary cap in 2 years from now is more important than your chance to compete this year.
I just think the 'BPA' thing causes more bad fits and overall reaches than drafting for need, or at least closer to even.
Dolphins thought Iggy was total 'BPA' last year. That dude couldve been had later.
Sewell would be in the 'bpa reach' domain at 6, IMO. While OLine 'depth' is a need for us and a starting center is a need, using 6 for Sewell (who some are saying would be better as a guard?!? F THAT!).
WR was a legit need last year and given injury histories, it's still a very big need, especially for guys that are clear-cut difference-makers on the field.
How often is it when the available guy at your positions of need are Way Worse than guys at positions your team's roster is already strong at?
One of the exceptions to this is reaching for QB. That's a 'no-no', plain and simple.
You could say Juwan James is the example of a reach that turned out badly. However, his injury could've happened to any player and that's what began his diminishing returns.
I'll counter that he was an average NFL RT and contributed on par with his draft slot.
Had Miami not drafted James, what was a better outcome that we missed? We needed a RT. Who wouldve manned RT?
Part of it is the cost of FAs at positions.
In addendum to 'BPA' always has to be salary cap concerns. This points even more to the virtue of drafting closer to need and only going away if there's just garbage available at those spots.
Just a thread for discussion. There's nuance.
