PDA

View Full Version : DRAFT: Best Available Player vs. Team Need


Hottoddie
12-16-2007, 02:05 PM
This is an article from Draft Daddy.com that they posted 11/19/2006, but it's still relevant to this year's upcoming draft. It's a good read. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://www.draftdaddy.com/theory/vol1num1.cfm

Ole Miss Texan
12-16-2007, 04:17 PM
Good article. Seems we're trying to build a "super unit" out of the Defensive Line. Not a bad place to start.

kastofsna
12-16-2007, 05:38 PM
you'll be hard pressed to find a team that didn't win a Super Bowl without a great line up front on defense. even the Colts last year who sucked there throughout the regular season dominated up front in the playoffs.

beerlover
12-17-2007, 09:35 AM
This is an article from Draft Daddy.com that they posted 11/19/2006, but it's still relevant to this year's upcoming draft. It's a good read. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://www.draftdaddy.com/theory/vol1num1.cfm

this would explain why the Texans have never drafted a OT in the 1st rd.

"getting a good player at a position of strength is always preferable than a mediocre player at position of weakness".

:cool:

Mr teX
12-17-2007, 09:39 AM
I've always been of the opinion that you always draft based on need unless that 1 super prospect is still there when you're up; then you're compelled to take that guy.

But then i guess it begs the question why that player is still there when he was supposed to be gone.

threetoedpete
12-17-2007, 10:21 AM
Take everything you read from any blog with grain of salt.


Charles Spencer, Pitt, 6-5/352, Guard: This draft is deep with power blocking guards. Three of them to be exact. Many zone blocking guards tend to be mobile, with the ability to pull and go outside. Spencer is not one of those, set him up and let him go, he will dominate his man.

He covered himelf by saying predominatly. The fact is we haven't seen a strech play since 2006. We feature power gaurds and a power RB in Ronnie. And our division is looooaded with great DTs. The only ZBS guys we have are Winston and in strech, I'd except Flanagan.

YoungTexanFan
12-17-2007, 10:37 AM
Take everything you read from any blog with grain of salt.




He covered himelf by saying predominatly. The fact is we haven't seen a strech play since 2006. We feature power gaurds and a power RB in Ronnie. And our division is looooaded with great DTs. The only ZBS guys we have are Winston and in strech, I'd except Flanagan.

Spencer isn't a ZBS type guy. Whoever said that got it right. Set him up, AS A FREAKING GUARD PEOPLE, A FREAKING GUARD, and let him go at his man. The zone scheme isn't as complicated as everyone thinks. Often the C and a G will block down to the same man and one of them will slide off to the next level leaving an off-balance DT for the other man. Spencer can do this. Spencer is a freaking OG.

threetoedpete
12-17-2007, 10:37 AM
this would explain why the Texans have never drafted a OT in the 1st rd.

"getting a good player at a position of strength is always preferable than a mediocre player at position of weakness".

:cool:

That's if you excpet the premise. Gotta fill the holes. KC BPAed like this and now look at the train wreck. Nope not a wise policy. To BPA with out any thought to the team at large and the future is just plain stupid. We won't darft a WR or midlle LB...nor should we. Even if they are BPA when we come up to bat. To a lesser extend the team is loaded with safteys...taking Kenny Phillips under any circumtnces is a waisted pick. I don't care how good he is. We don't need him.
Unless you're telling me point blank that this guy is such a good athlete he can man one of the strating corner spots....waisted pick. We don't have large holes at the safty spots. We have a hole at CB.


In conclusion, teams are generally better off sticking to the BAP philosophy over team need whenever it is possible. Team need is always a consideration, especially in terms of planning salary cap investment over years, however getting a good player at a position of strength is always preferable than a mediocre player at position of weakness.

This is pure bull dung and anyone who believes it you are so out of touch with the draft process I can't even aurgue with you.

As far as his Richard Seymore Reference: I remember that one. He was droped down the boards becaese he wasn't true 4-3 DT....what he was was a monster 3-4 DE. The patties were switching and while everyone was scatching their backsides...Belichick gobbled him up. The rest as they say was history. He wasn't the best DT on the board at the six spot. What he was was the perfect round peg in their hole, not the BPA. They should have, under this jokers premise, taken Damien Lewis or Andre Crater . Who ?

The draft is not science. It is an art. Most folks can't wrap their minds around that little thingy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NFL_Draft

threetoedpete
12-17-2007, 11:13 AM
Spencer isn't a ZBS type guy. Whoever said that got it right. Set him up, AS A FREAKING GUARD PEOPLE, A FREAKING GUARD, and let him go at his man. The zone scheme isn't as complicated as everyone thinks. Often the C and a G will block down to the same man and one of them will slide off to the next level leaving an off-balance DT for the other man. Spencer can do this. Spencer is a freaking OG.

apprenatly someone disgreed with you. Someone who is making his living doing this.


Another one everybody banged last year was Tony Dungies draft ...Looses his #2 Rb, Looses his Defenive back bone and depth, what does the guy do? Did He BPA. No he did not, he went out and banged his holes hard with the best tallent he could get in the slot. Period. That's what you do.

threetoedpete
12-17-2007, 11:16 AM
GD YTF, they haven't run anything remotley resembling ZBS in two seasons. Stop posting that bull sheet. It's not happening. Hasn't Happened in thirty games, why do you keep posting that ? They aren't chop blocking on the back side. No one is running strech plays...it is not happening.


And quite frankly, the only ZBS guy they currently have strating is Erick Winston. Who as I recall you also wanted to stick down inside at guard. So .....either we're going to bring in or draft four new guys or they will continue running this blend of power Green Bay rushing attack and the Kube passing attack. And they aren't going to switch out an entire o-line in one off season. I would just be giddy if they got someone tallented enough to move Salaam back to his original swing postion befor they crater the guys career. Twenty six games and counting.

eriadoc
12-17-2007, 11:20 AM
this would explain why the Texans have never drafted a OT in the 1st rd.

"getting a good player at a position of strength is always preferable than a mediocre player at position of weakness".

:cool:

Jammal Brown.

YoungTexanFan
12-17-2007, 11:33 AM
GD YTF, they haven't run anything remotley resembling ZBS in two seasons. Stop posting that bull sheet. It's not happening. Hasn't Happened in thirty games, why do you keep posting that ? They aren't chop blocking on the back side. No one is running strech plays...it is not happening.

I'm not calling for it. We don't have the personel to run that system. Regardless of what system we run, ESPECIALLY if we run a more traditional man-over blocking technique, Spencer qualifies as a mauling OG or RT at best. I'm just so tired of having everyone think Spencer was the next Pace after two games in the NFL. Winston is the better player.

threetoedpete
12-17-2007, 11:41 AM
I'm not calling for it. We don't have the personel to run that system. Regardless of what system we run, ESPECIALLY if we run a more traditional man-over blocking technique, Spencer qualifies as a mauling OG or RT at best. I'm just so tired of having everyone think Spencer was the next Pace after two games in the NFL. Winston is the better player.

You posted ZBS. Now I don't believe Spencer is ever going to be back. That's what i believe. What I know is they've got one fella, just one, who can execute a block one on one in space. If Spencer does come back it will be at OLT. If not, they will settle the guy out. That was why he was drafted. Not to mual at Gaurd. He was an art pick, not a science pick.

Honoring Earl 34
12-17-2007, 12:25 PM
You posted ZBS. Now I don't believe Spencer is ever going to be back. That's what i believe. What I know is they've got one fella, just one, who can execute a block one on one in space. If Spencer does come back it will be at OLT. If not, they will settle the guy out. That was why he was drafted. Not to mual at Gaurd. He was an art pick, not a science pick.

In college Spencer was a mauler . I think if Spencer comes back it will be at guard . That's why I think they'll draft a LT .

Is it easier to find maulers or fineses offensive linemen ? I'm not sure but if I'm driving you off the line of scrimmage , I could tell you the play and you could'nt do much about it .

Rex King
12-17-2007, 07:35 PM
Jammal Brown.

Except he was a good player at a position of weakness. Perhaps that's not as preferable as a mediocre player at a position of strength. :gun: I joke, TJ, I joke.

badboy
12-19-2007, 12:57 PM
Spencer isn't a ZBS type guy. Whoever said that got it right. Set him up, AS A FREAKING GUARD PEOPLE, A FREAKING GUARD, and let him go at his man. The zone scheme isn't as complicated as everyone thinks. Often the C and a G will block down to the same man and one of them will slide off to the next level leaving an off-balance DT for the other man. Spencer can do this. Spencer is a freaking OG.I can see Spencer at tackle if we get the run game going. I imagine Dayne would have appreciated Pitts and SPencer on the left power punching up the field.

Ole Miss Texan
12-19-2007, 02:46 PM
I'm a big proponent of putting Spencer in as a Guard, if he's even healthy enough to play that. We have been getting very little to zero push on the 4th and 1's and short yardage goal line situations, its been pathetic...but often overlooked. Spencer would be great in that situation.

beerlover
12-19-2007, 03:22 PM
I'm a big proponent of putting Spencer in as a Guard, if he's even healthy enough to play that. We have been getting very little to zero push on the 4th and 1's and short yardage goal line situations, its been pathetic...but often overlooked. Spencer would be great in that situation.

I heard Kubiak mention Monday (sports radio 610 The Kubiak Hour) Spencer recovery forcast has improved but would mostly likey mean a return to the Guard position he played @ Pitt before he was moved to LT. sucks for him too u-know being that LT is the big :money: position. same thing with Weary, who I think the Texans will still resign, but instead of having to offer above market value will only have to pay fair value. maybe then the Texans can afford to use a 1st rd. pick on a franchise LT this year :)

Ole Miss Texan
12-19-2007, 03:30 PM
good points beerlover.


Here's a question as far as BPA vs. Team Need:

Every time I watch this guy I'm soo impressed. TE from Missouri Martin Rucker...he's huge at 6'6 like 250lbs. We have Owen Daniels whose going to and is a great receiving TE, really all our TE's are good to servicable. However, the more I think about it the more giddy I get thinking about the formations we could put out there if we pick up a guy like Rucker whose a huge threat in the redzone as well as been a real good blocker.

Could you imagine being in the redzone and have Schaub looking at Andre Johnson and Kevin Walter for targets and then a two TE formation with Owen Daniels and the 6'6 Martin Rucker!

I think this is a guy who we're not about to spend a 1st on and he's not going to last to the 3rd. So it would be a possibility if we traded down with a team for either their 1st and 2nd...or if we were already picking in the 20's something like their 2nd this year and 1st next...or whatever combination.

So those that no about him...He's a good blocker which we need and a good receiving TE that's a huge target. This would be more of a BPA type of pick but I think in the long term it could be very very very good for this team.


We have so many holes/needs we're going to probably not touch 1 or 2 of them with viable pick/rounds. OL, RB, Secondary. We have a 1st and 3rd.

Comments??

ArlingtonTexan
12-19-2007, 03:53 PM
BPA and need are not mutally exclusive as some of you are attempting to make it. BPA means drafting the CLEARLY BPA. If there (by your team's board) is not a player better, then BPA team draft need. Honestly, there are more times in a draft where there is a bunch of players rated pretty close to the same than those where a guy is head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd.

Need drafting, starts with the opposite premise. Let's fill a team need with the highest rated players at said position. Still if a player drops who is not at one of those positions, the need team will go BPA. The difference is in starting point, but there is plenty of gray that exists for both sides. Both starting points have worked well enough where anyone who wants to build the case can do so.

badboy
12-19-2007, 03:56 PM
I heard Kubiak mention Monday (sports radio 610 The Kubiak Hour) Spencer recovery forcast has improved but would mostly likey mean a return to the Guard position he played @ Pitt before he was moved to LT. sucks for him too u-know being that LT is the big :money: position. same thing with Weary, who I think the Texans will still resign, but instead of having to offer above market value will only have to pay fair value. maybe then the Texans can afford to use a 1st rd. pick on a franchise LT this year :)

Pitts extended 5 years almost $20 m. Spencer has two years to show what he can do. By then he might be able to get $6m a year at guard or show he can be a LT. He has earned a cool million and played less than two games. He should remember that when contract time comes up again.

badboy
12-19-2007, 04:03 PM
good points beerlover.


Here's a question as far as BPA vs. Team Need:

Every time I watch this guy I'm soo impressed. TE from Missouri Martin Rucker...he's huge at 6'6 like 250lbs. We have Owen Daniels whose going to and is a great receiving TE, really all our TE's are good to servicable. However, the more I think about it the more giddy I get thinking about the formations we could put out there if we pick up a guy like Rucker whose a huge threat in the redzone as well as been a real good blocker.

Could you imagine being in the redzone and have Schaub looking at Andre Johnson and Kevin Walter for targets and then a two TE formation with Owen Daniels and the 6'6 Martin Rucker!

I think this is a guy who we're not about to spend a 1st on and he's not going to last to the 3rd. So it would be a possibility if we traded down with a team for either their 1st and 2nd...or if we were already picking in the 20's something like their 2nd this year and 1st next...or whatever combination.

So those that no about him...He's a good blocker which we need and a good receiving TE that's a huge target. This would be more of a BPA type of pick but I think in the long term it could be very very very good for this team.


We have so many holes/needs we're going to probably not touch 1 or 2 of them with viable pick/rounds. OL, RB, Secondary. We have a 1st and 3rd.

Comments??

I wished we had a back that could get us into end zone from Red Zone. Bad things can happen to passes down there.

beerlover
12-20-2007, 12:10 AM
BPA and need are not mutally exclusive as some of you are attempting to make it. BPA means drafting the CLEARLY BPA. If there (by your team's board) is not a player better, then BPA team draft need. Honestly, there are more times in a draft where there is a bunch of players rated pretty close to the same than those where a guy is head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd.

Need drafting, starts with the opposite premise. Let's fill a team need with the highest rated players at said position. Still if a player drops who is not at one of those positions, the need team will go BPA. The difference is in starting point, but there is plenty of gray that exists for both sides. Both starting points have worked well enough where anyone who wants to build the case can do so.

:confused:

jk

each team has its own draft board, they pretty much go by that. what may be bpa to one team may not be to another it all boils down to opinons based on the data presented. how do you say it....an inexact science, just some teams are better at it than others :shades: