This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Patriots = Best available Tight End
Bengals, Giants and Steelers have also claimed to be best player drafting teams. Dallas is close, but more of a best athlete kind of approach, meaning Parcels rules out OLs and isn't to fond of little guys like RBs or WRs with a very early pick.
The Steelers may claim this but their draft selections in the past 5 years or so would suggest otherwise. (I'm not saying the picks have been poor, just that they have tended to select for need much more often than not of late. If a team has a need to fill and the top player on their board fills that need - perfect. It just doesn't work that way as often as some teams would lead us to believe.)
This made me laugh because it is so true. "Well, we need to strengthen the defensive line and he was the top man on our board." Yeah right. Every team says this about practically half their picks. The draft is just a miracle of perfection where the top man on boards meets glaring needs all the time. Also team tendencies change based on team strength. That Steeler team was on the cusp of a Super Bowl for the past five years, and very good teams will probably be more interested in filling needs. They also have fewer. So, it's like fitting that last piece to the puzzle. On the other hand a really bad team has to focus on getting the best talent available regardless of fit.
The draft is not the either need or BPA stuff that teams try to get by the public. Teams do some version of a mix. When a team comes out and says stuff about he was the highest person on our draft board, this is not a concensus all-inclusive draft board we fans work from, but the 100 (or whatever number of)players who fit our specific system, incorporates personal biases, etc . To a large extent, while not often admitted that draft board already incorporates need. Another consideration is that teams do not automatically have the same idea of what they need that fans/draftsperts do. They maybe high on some special team LB that has never lined up in a regular defensive set, while we are thinking that LB should be a priority. the reverse is all so true, we may look at some position as at least solid, but the team does not have the same thought. In terms, of real short term needs, it seems like many teams try to resolve those in FA instead of depending on a rookie to come in and resolve the problem. 2006 was unusual in the number of rookies who came are were able to make immediate impacts.
You have a good notion. The key is that an individual is likely to be the CLEARLY Best player available (both by consensus and specific board) earlier in the draft. I beleive that this is why you so often see RBs go to some team that already has a seemingly established player and why the need based mock draft is usually rendered useless by about pick 5.
Good call. I cannot remember the phrasing or exact wording but his (Brandt's) feeling in that article was that if a team constantly takes guys they need, meaning players meeting a positional need, versus guys with talent, which would be difference makers and impact players, that team kicks their a** kicked on Sundays more often than not. He then went on to explain that the top few picks are for impact players especially Round 1 and to a lesser degree Rounds 2-3. He summarized by saying you take guys that win you games early on in the draft and guys that help you win later in the draft.
picks over the course of Round 1 especially picks 1-15. There are always 1, 2, 3 or 4 picks that leave the general public feeling odd, uncomfortable, giggling or in a state of shock. The reason being is that the value table and proposition chart/formula used by each team is just a little different.
