Draft Strategy

Discussion in 'College Football & the NFL Draft' started by michaelm, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. michaelm

    michaelm vox nihili

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,931
    Likes Received:
    732
    Location:
    Spring, TX
    Considering the recent cuts, speculation is starting to pop up on the MB about this possibly being a defense heavy draft for the team. I'm not so sure.

    I think that two years is the soonest that we can really put a playoff caliber team on ther field. With that thought in mind, I would think that this would be the year to draft offensive skill players since they generally take a bit longer to develope(other than running back).
    To me, it makes sense to get your offensive players first (for the most part), then next year go a little more defense and hopefully they will be developmentally(sp?) even in a few years.
    I am having a hard time describing this exactly, but if you get my point, what are your thoughts on this?
    I don't think you'd look at the draft this way if you had a team with fewer holes, but with our team it may be a good way to think since we will likely have quite a few players from the next few drafts pushed into starting roles quickly.
     
  2. gtexan02

    gtexan02 Working?

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,785
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Location:
    Boston
    What recent cuts are you talking about? The only defensive player gone was Coleman, and that wasn't a surprise to anyone
     
  3. exclude

    exclude Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Walker is gone, for all intents and purposes. I'm not so sure whomever else the OP was referring to.
     
  4. Frills

    Frills Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    15
    Walker has been notified as well, just not formally cut
     
  5. Runner

    Runner Hubcap Diamond Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    8,325
    Likes Received:
    627
    That is an interesting take. There has always been some speculation here that we'll fix one side of the ball first and then worry about the other next year. It seems most posters think they'd fix offense first, although maybe not for the reason you listed.

    I'm of the opinion that coaching fixes many of our offensive problems and more talent is needed on defense. I agree with you that in general rookies can make a quicker contribution on defense.
     
  6. michaelm

    michaelm vox nihili

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,931
    Likes Received:
    732
    Location:
    Spring, TX

    Coleman is gone, Walker has been notified from what I have read,
    and I never said any of this was supposed to be a surprise to anyone...


    Anyway... as I did say... I have seen a few threads speculating that this might indicate a defensively oriented draft. I don't see it that way and per my original post, wanted some respose from the masses...
     
  7. Spoda

    Spoda Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    5
    i'm starting to believe my wish of trading may come true...banks being cut may just be fodder to make teams believe there is a glimmer of hope we take...sigh...gulp...i hate to even say it...VY...maybe it's a brilliant strategy to scare the 2 teams right below us...if not oh well i wasted your time for reading this
     
  8. Frills

    Frills Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    15
    I think Banks was here 1 year too long, we needed him while Ragone developed, and I hated seeing Banks in during the SF game.

    Why put a vet in a game when you're 2-13? We all knew what Banks brought to the table 1 TD, 2 INT.

    Yet another moronic move by Capers and crew
     


  9. axman40

    axman40 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    21,685
    Likes Received:
    536
    Location:
    Austin
    Wait a tic we have a draft strategy this year?

    :cool:
     
  10. michaelm

    michaelm vox nihili

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,931
    Likes Received:
    732
    Location:
    Spring, TX

    Well, the thread title is more about opinions on the MB about draft strategy as a concept... not really claiming the existence (or lack thereof) of any strategy within the organization...
     
  11. The Preacher

    The Preacher Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't see why we can't at least take the Saints for another pick. If the Jets want Leinart as much as the rumor says we can essentially force the Saints to give up another pick to get him. I mean we are talking franchise QB here so make them pay to get him instead of carelessly thinking he falls right to you at #2. I've heard they like Cutler as well but I'm thinking that's posturing to think they're alright with losing Leinart but guess what, I'm not buying that. Nope give us you're 2nd rounder or the Jets are getting Leinart. It's that simple. We are holding so many cards right now my strategy is load up as many picks as I can right at the top of the 2nd and 3rd with Mario or DF as well. If the Saints don't play we're down at #4 with more picks or... we play hardball and take this #1 pick and turn the franchise waaay around! :jam:
     
  12. WILLIEG

    WILLIEG Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    5
    I tatally agree with your idea of taking care of the offense first then worrying about who did and didn't fit into the defense scheme this coming year. that way we can make the best possible picks and focus our attention to where it needs to be and that is OFFENSE.
     

Share This Page