|
|
Post by P. Marf on Mar 2, 2011 11:43:14 GMT -5
What is your stance on this: Norm swears that a team must draft the best player on the board no matter what. For example he is saying AJ Green might fall to the Cowboys at 9 due to teams jumping for QBs. Whether this is true or not should a team just pick the best player they have on their board or should they put a heavier weight on their needs? The team has specific needs they have to address but Norm seems to think the best player on the board outweighs this. What good is another WR if you have no line? Or what good is an OLB if you have weaknesses in your secondary? You obviously want to use your draft board but doesn't it need to be adjusted to for your high priority positions? Look at the Lions when they drafted all of those receivers.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Mar 2, 2011 13:57:47 GMT -5
I think the best way is some sort of combination of needs vs best available.
|
|
|
|
Post by karilou on Mar 2, 2011 14:17:37 GMT -5
maybe i'm alone in my thinking but i dont necessarily want a first round draftee. i'd rather have the talent further down in the draft because those dudes seem to have something to prove and are willing to work harder. so, that being said, i agree with coach to a certain degree. focus on needs should take priority over best available. a good coach can take someone with talent and a good work ethic and make them the best available.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Mar 2, 2011 14:22:56 GMT -5
meh, I disagree there.
Like I always say, you can't win the Kentucky Derby on a Jackass. I'll take the Thoroughbreds.
Also, its pretty rare that you have a 1st rounder who doesn't work hard, I would bet there are just as many 4-6 rounders who aren't as hard workers as there are 1-3 rounders. Even the most arrogant, cocky, Dbag athletes out there work their tails off at that level.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Mar 2, 2011 14:23:54 GMT -5
In fact, I would wager the biggest difference between a 1st round pick and a later round pick is work ethic. That's how they made themselves into a first rounder.
|
|
sully
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 13,045
|
Post by sully on Mar 2, 2011 16:26:04 GMT -5
This is exactly why you see draft and trades, or trading down. Get value out of the pick, and let someone else address their needs, if their willing to pay a premium. If not, draft the guy and trade a weaker link to improve in a needy position.
Why didn't I get into sports mgmt.
|
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Mar 2, 2011 16:31:24 GMT -5
The draft boards are never right either. Its no exact science. In Norm's eyes if the best player on your board every pick is a LB then you take him. Stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Mar 2, 2011 16:40:55 GMT -5
I would do whatever the Pats, Colts, Steelers, and Packers do. Seems to work out pretty for well them.
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Mar 2, 2011 16:53:12 GMT -5
But to answer your question I agree with Fisch that you have to use a combination of best available v need. The problem is that it is rarely that simple. There are so many other factors that go in to a draft pick that most people tend to forget about.
Say that you need a QB and you have the 11th pick. It's your turn and the guy you want is available. You draft the guy right?
Well what if you look at the next five teams drafting behind you and they all have legit starting QB's and are probably not going to draft your guy, but you think that the 6th team (17th pick) will take him for sure if he is still on the board. You also think that the team with the 16th pick really wants a DB that is still on the board but they are afraid a team between you and them is going to draft him. Well rather than draft your guy and pay pick 11 money, trade spots with the team with 16th pick, get another late round pick and still draft your guy but only have to pay him pick 16 money.
I realize this may not be the best example but I'm just trying to illustrate how it's not as simple as need v best available.
I will say thought that I think the best teams draft more toward need than best available for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Mar 2, 2011 17:16:22 GMT -5
Right. I agree. I was just dumbfounded on the specific point of drafting the best player possible. I know it gets more complicated than that. But Norm was weighing the draft board 95% percent and the needs 5%. It does need to be like 50/50 and then with that you can try and move in the draft if needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by karilou on Mar 2, 2011 17:52:33 GMT -5
Yeah but how many first round drafts had been a bust? And how many cam newtons with rich daddies are out there? That's all I'm saying.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Mar 2, 2011 18:24:53 GMT -5
on the flip side of that, how many 4-6 rounders are a bust? Almost all of them.
I don't quite get the Cam newton thing. He is one that I would stay away from.
|
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Mar 2, 2011 22:10:27 GMT -5
His throwing in he combine was horrific.
|
|
|
|
Post by karilou on Mar 3, 2011 8:53:25 GMT -5
bad seasons can account for low draft pick though and not always wind up being a bust. look at arian foster for example. he wasnt even drafted, yet he's the leading rusher in the NFL. I can see both sides of the coin.
i like finch's idea of doing what the steelers, green bay, etc al have done lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Mar 3, 2011 10:10:46 GMT -5
There are always going to be exceptions to what is best. There are good players that have gone undrafted but you have a better shot of picking a great player in the first round than finding one out of 15 picks in the 6th round.
|
|
