PDA

View Full Version : Draft Best player or Position?


Goldeagle
11-30-2005, 09:28 PM
I say Position until the later rounds

1. OT (D'brick, or Scott from UT)
2. OLB/ILB (Chad Greenway, AJ Hawk) (Unless we get Lavar Arrington)
3. O-Line ( Tyler McMeans, WInston Justice
4. Safety (Slay, Pat Watkins)
Rounds 5, 6, 7: best player

cadahnic
11-30-2005, 09:46 PM
First Jon Scott unless he shows something impressive will slide to late first round or second round. D'Brick is not the right guy for us. Greenway and Hawk are nice, but unless you found out about an extra pick then we should be looking at Ahmad Brooks and Rocky McIntosh. Your oline picks are relatively solid if we are taking the guys late in the first day or early second day. Slay is a hitter and could come in and be the SS we have missed Watkins is average at best and would be a reach at anything over the 4 or 5th rounds.

Napa Auto Parts
11-30-2005, 09:59 PM
My Believe is were ever you pick is draft best player available. if you draft by need your cutting yourself short.

hot pickle
11-30-2005, 10:15 PM
I say McIntosh if we can get him in the 2nd or 3rd round
and Doesn't NC STATE have some real good DE's
this is what i think we need

DE/LB (a DeMarcus Ware type player)
G
S
CB
TE

those arent in order cause im not sure what we will need the most
and the reason i have G instead of Tackle is because, Pitts has looked real good
but maybe a RT would be nice

infantrycak
12-01-2005, 08:18 AM
My Believe is were ever you pick is draft best player available. if you draft by need your cutting yourself short.

Yup, drafting for need or position is a sure way to end up with a less talented team. Teams should draft by bpa with elimination for absolutely cap crazy position picks--both completely unneeded positions and positions that don't deserve the relative money (kickers in the 1st).

thunderkyss
12-01-2005, 08:40 AM
Yup, drafting for need or position is a sure way to end up with a less talented team. Teams should draft by bpa with elimination for absolutely cap crazy position picks--both completely unneeded positions and positions that don't deserve the relative money (kickers in the 1st).

Then you'll have too much talent that can't help you.......Detroit has a QB(whom I've liked since Oregon) and three wide recievers, but still can't get the ball out there.

NewEngland/Denver do not have the most talented players on their teams.

Trade down if you gots to, but you've got to pick the players that fit your system....you've got to get players that fill positions to allow you to do what you want to do.

If we'd always drafted the best player, we'd have a team full of WRs & D-Lineman.

MorKnolle
12-01-2005, 09:12 AM
In the NBA you can draft best player available or based more on potential rather than going for filling needs at specific positions because the game is much more versatile and most players can play several positions. However, the NFL is much more of a team sport and you have to be pretty solid at all positions rather than having an overload of great players at a few positions and ignoring filling holes in other spots. Look at the Lions, they have drafted a WR in the first round the last three years because they were the best player available and their defense and OLine are not very good because they keep getting ignored. Generally, especially in the early first round, the "best player available" is going to be a skill position (QB, RB, WR) and you can't keep loading up on those with high picks and ignoring the other holes on your team and expect to get better.

cadahnic
12-01-2005, 09:22 AM
Mork you are right the Lions are the best example of BPA going wrong. Yeah they have weapons, but they dont have the OL to block for them or the D to stop the opposing skill players from running up the score.

BTW DAMN the NBA for drafting for potential I want to win now. That was because of my teams poor performance and you know who I mean. Go Blue and Gold.

thunderkyss
12-01-2005, 09:46 AM
The NBA can get away with it because they only play 5 men at a time...one man is 20% of your team from the word go. It's easier for the BPA to make a difference, and it's easier to build around that one man from year to year. If only Allen Iverson would make it to practise as a team, they would've taken it all by now.

The NFL, it's a process. You need a system, you need the players, then they've all got to work together.

uhcougar08
12-01-2005, 12:49 PM
Yup, drafting for need or position is a sure way to end up with a less talented team. Teams should draft by bpa with elimination for absolutely cap crazy position picks--both completely unneeded positions and positions that don't deserve the relative money (kickers in the 1st).

Thats why if Reggie Bush is number 1 graded player and we have the number 1 pick, you take him.

infantrycak
12-01-2005, 01:35 PM
Thats why if Reggie Bush is number 1 graded player and we have the number 1 pick, you take him.

If you stay at #1 and believe he is BPA then yes. Or you can trade down for fair value to fill more holes. Staying put is not the only option.

uhcougar08
12-01-2005, 01:39 PM
If you stay at #1 and believe he is BPA then yes. Or you can trade down for fair value to fill more holes. Staying put is not the only option.

I am biased on Bush, but for the right trade, I completely agree.

Texas_Thrill
12-01-2005, 04:20 PM
I'm not biased towards anything at this point. I'll wait to see what our off-season looks like. Some NEEDS we have now might not be there come draft and we draft bpa (not likely).

Or we can have some NEEDS we still need to fill and draft the BPA for that need.

Amazing you can do either or with the #1 pick b/c we just that damn bad.

uhcougar08
12-02-2005, 04:09 PM
I'm not biased towards anything at this point. I'll wait to see what our off-season looks like. Some NEEDS we have now might not be there come draft and we draft bpa (not likely).

Or we can have some NEEDS we still need to fill and draft the BPA for that need.

Amazing you can do either or with the #1 pick b/c we just that damn bad.

BPA is the Heisman trophy winner, right? Isn't that what BPA means?

tulexan
12-02-2005, 04:16 PM
Not necessarily. Eric Crouch was the heisman winner, but he was far from the best player available going into the draft.

infantrycak
12-02-2005, 04:43 PM
BPA is the Heisman trophy winner, right? Isn't that what BPA means?

Not even close. The Heisman trophy is for the best college QB or RB sometimes from a top 10 team--it really isn't even about being the best college player, much less prospective pro-player.

rmartin65
12-02-2005, 05:42 PM
Not even close. The Heisman trophy is for the best college QB or RB sometimes from a top 10 team--it really isn't even about being the best college player, much less prospective pro-player.
Jason White, anybody?