Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Drafting to Win vs Drafting Not to Lose (or drafting safely)

michaelm

vox nihili
I've been thinking about the Texans and their general tendency under Kubiak of playing not to lose. I think we're all mostly on the same page that Kubiak tended to call games that way.
In the draft, there seem to be prospects that could be viewed as selections made to win, and selections made not to lose.

For instance, I'm not a JFF fan by any means, although I have warmed up to him a bit recently, but I think selecting JFF could be viewed as drafting to win. OTOH, drafting Bridgewater might be viewed as drafting not to lose.

Besides JFF, I think Clowney is also a draft to win type of prospect.

I thought I'd throw this out there for discussion of the concept in general, and also for y'all to tell us which players you think fit in a particular category.
 
If you are drafting to win, I think you have to go BPA in the first couple rounds of this draft, and then start to fill need in the 3rd and later. The only way I would take a QB in the first two rounds of this years draft is if Carr fell to 33. Otherwise its BPA at 1.1 and 2.1 and then see who is there at 3.1.
 
To win you set your priority needs then draft to fill. You can draft BPA and never fill a need.
 
To win you set your priority needs then draft to fill. You can draft BPA and never fill a need.

That's why you fill need in later rounds. You cant pass up on possible legendary talent to fill a need.

Rounds 1 & 2 go BPA then fill need.
 
I'm sure every pick takes BPA into consideration, and need considered for most of them as well. They are just wrong about the players a LOT, like anyone would be.
 
To win you set your priority needs then draft to fill. You can draft BPA and never fill a need.
If drafting BPA, whose board do you use? And if that board doesn't match your board, which is the right board? As fans, we can never 100% know if BPA was, or wasn't, taken.
(edit) oops, wrong post was quoted.
 
If you are drafting to win, I think you have to go BPA in the first couple rounds of this draft, and then start to fill need in the 3rd and later. The only way I would take a QB in the first two rounds of this years draft is if Carr fell to 33. Otherwise its BPA at 1.1 and 2.1 and then see who is there at 3.1.
That's counterintuitive to me. Why would you try to fill needs with lesser prospects? I would try to balance the need vs. BPA and take the BPA at a position of need, unless it was completely ridiculous like drafting a guard or kicker at 1.1. Teams with that kind of need aren't usually drafting at the top of the draft unless it's Da Raiduh's.

Considering that the Texans fell from a back-to-back playoff team to 2-14, I don't think they are that far from being a playoff team again. They could be a healthy AF, FQB and RT away from it. Not to mention coaching staff. I really think Kubiak lost the team last year and that's the real reason it was such a lousy year. The man is stubborn to a fault. Kinda like Mike Shannahan.

What do you do if there's no clear cut BPA? Couldn't Robinson neutralize Clowney or Mack? Does that make Watkins the BPA or Robinson?
 
I would hope that a team's braintrust has enough mental complexity to consider both BPA and need at each and every pick. Whether done in the design of the board or is a part of the discussions as the pick approaches, I think the best drafting organizations are able to weigh multiple considerations even if it favors (BPA, need, trading, solving later in the draft) one over the other at specific pick or as a general philosophy.
 
That's counterintuitive to me. Why would you try to fill needs with lesser prospects? I would try to balance the need vs. BPA and take the BPA at a position of need, unless it was completely ridiculous like drafting a guard or kicker at 1.1. Teams with that kind of need aren't usually drafting at the top of the draft unless it's Da Raiduh's.

Considering that the Texans fell from a back-to-back playoff team to 2-14, I don't think they are that far from being a playoff team again. They could be a healthy AF, FQB and RT away from it. Not to mention coaching staff. I really think Kubiak lost the team last year and that's the real reason it was such a lousy year. The man is stubborn to a fault. Kinda like Mike Shannahan.

What do you do if there's no clear cut BPA? Couldn't Robinson neutralize Clowney or Mack? Does that make Watkins the BPA or Robinson?

I don't think Robinson could neutralize Clowney. Seems to me could run block him....and we should just stop right there and wait about 4 years...

He ain't ready for that yet. Course, you can't expect a rookie lineman to be ready for that anyway.
 
I don't think Robinson could neutralize Clowney. Seems to me could run block him....and we should just stop right there and wait about 4 years...

He ain't ready for that yet. Course, you can't expect a rookie lineman to be ready for that anyway.
Really? Clowney has exactly 1 move, according to the "experts" (and I'm not talking about the Myth Buster's...I mean real "experts". LOL). Clowney, in that regard is every bit as much a project as Robinson would be. Robinson doesn't have the "try" and "motor" issues that Clowney has, though. In fact, he's reported to be extremely competitive and have a real nasty streak. I think he'd figure Clowney out. Besides, he'll have those 4 years to develop. Just look at what Brown developed into.
 
I've been thinking about the Texans and their general tendency under Kubiak of playing not to lose. I think we're all mostly on the same page that Kubiak tended to call games that way.
In the draft, there seem to be prospects that could be viewed as selections made to win, and selections made not to lose.

For instance, I'm not a JFF fan by any means, although I have warmed up to him a bit recently, but I think selecting JFF could be viewed as drafting to win. OTOH, drafting Bridgewater might be viewed as drafting not to lose.

Besides JFF, I think Clowney is also a draft to win type of prospect.

I thought I'd throw this out there for discussion of the concept in general, and also for y'all to tell us which players you think fit in a particular category.

I agree with taking Clowney is draft to win. But Bridgewater in the first is draft to get fired. Drafting JFF is a gamble.
 
Really? Clowney has exactly 1 move, according to the "experts" (and I'm not talking about the Myth Buster's...I mean real "experts". LOL). Clowney, in that regard is every bit as much a project as Robinson would be. Robinson doesn't have the "try" and "motor" issues that Clowney has, though. In fact, he's reported to be extremely competitive and have a real nasty streak. I think he'd figure Clowney out. Besides, he'll have those 4 years to develop. Just look at what Brown developed into.

Yeah, I'm pretty much assuming that Robinson is a young Duane Brown. I don't have any problem with taking him, but I'd prefer not having a rookie O-linemen line up against a guy like Clowney. I'd rather see Duane Brown himself put an end to that threat. We are talking individual scenarios here, but I don't have a problem with taking Robinson.
 
I agree with taking Clowney is draft to win. But Bridgewater in the first is draft to get fired. Drafting JFF is a gamble.

Taking Clowney is a gamble to get a great front 7.

Taking Bridgewater is a gamble to get a great pocket-passer.

Taking Manziel is a gamble to get a great QB who will inevitably run some.

Taking Mack is gamble to see if he actually has any room left for improvement.

Taking Barr is a gamble that he knows enough now and will actually improve like expected.

Taking Bortles is a gamble that he will....well, just be good enough for that high of a pick.

It's all a gamble. I don't agree that Bridgewater is going to get anybody fired, unless it's possibly for passing on him. I do agree that Manziel is the biggest gamble (although that does not necessarily mean M-I-S-T-A-K-E), unless we were to just take somebody who is clearly not good enough and not even mentioned in these threads as a possible #1 pick.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty much assuming that Robinson is a young Duane Brown. I don't have any problem with taking him, but I'd prefer not having a rookie O-linemen line up against a guy like Clowney. I'd rather see Duane Brown himself put an end to that threat. We are talking individual scenarios here, but I don't have a problem with taking Robinson.
I would start Robinson at RT, not LT. No need at all to try to replace DB at LT. I think Robinson could handle Clowney at RT, as a rookie, because the QB would have better vision on Clowney. Pure speculation.

DB could no doubt handle his speed rush and embarrass Clowney.
 
I would start Robinson at RT, not LT. No need at all to try to replace DB at LT. I think Robinson could handle Clowney at RT, as a rookie, because the QB would have better vision on Clowney. Pure speculation.

DB could no doubt handle his speed rush and embarrass Clowney.

Actually, I knew he'd start at RT, and I love that idea. Suddenly, we can run on both sides of the line again...

I knew he wouldn't start immediately at LT, but I thought you were saying that he could (like a fictional scenario). Anyway, it doesn't matter. He could start at RT right now and that's what we need.
 
Actually, I knew he'd start at RT, and I love that idea. Suddenly, we can run on both sides of the line again...

I knew he wouldn't start immediately at LT, but I thought you were saying that he could (like a fictional scenario). Anyway, it doesn't matter. He could start at RT right now and that's what we need.

You're a smart fother mucker!!!!
 
I've been thinking about the Texans and their general tendency under Kubiak of playing not to lose. I think we're all mostly on the same page that Kubiak tended to call games that way.
In the draft, there seem to be prospects that could be viewed as selections made to win, and selections made not to lose.

For instance, I'm not a JFF fan by any means, although I have warmed up to him a bit recently, but I think selecting JFF could be viewed as drafting to win. OTOH, drafting Bridgewater might be viewed as drafting not to lose.

Besides JFF, I think Clowney is also a draft to win type of prospect.

I thought I'd throw this out there for discussion of the concept in general, and also for y'all to tell us which players you think fit in a particular category.


The way I see it... if we draft JFF, or Bridgewater, or Clowney, then Bill O'Brien told Rick Smith, "I can win with that guy."

If we don't draft JFF, or Bridgewater, or Clowney, then Bill O'Brien told Rick Smith, "I can win without that guy."

It's not like there's only one winner in this draft. It would be blind luck if we looked back on this draft six years from now & say we got the best player in that draft, like we can say about the 2003 draft, the 2006 draft, & the 2011 draft (arguably).
 
The way I see it... if we draft JFF, or Bridgewater, or Clowney, then Bill O'Brien told Rick Smith, "I can win with that guy."

If we don't draft JFF, or Bridgewater, or Clowney, then Bill O'Brien told Rick Smith, "I can win without that guy."

It's not like there's only one winner in this draft. It would be blind luck if we looked back on this draft six years from now & say we got the best player in that draft, like we can say about the 2003 draft, the 2006 draft, & the 2011 draft (arguably).

Go to sleep Thunder, draft is tomorrow, common we are all tired at this point.
 
Apologies to the OP, but this felt like the better option to pose this question since all we can do is sit on our hands until the draft...

Which players would we be talking about if Gary Kubiak & Company had not been ushered out the door...?

Same prospects at the top?

How would the media be valuing/projecting the prospects differently for us?

I know it's looking backward, a time waster, but I wonder how different it would be?

:runaway:
 
I don't think Robinson could neutralize Clowney. Seems to me could run block him....and we should just stop right there and wait about 4 years...

He ain't ready for that yet. Course, you can't expect a rookie lineman to be ready for that anyway.

Those college kids didn't seem to have a problem with it last year. He only had 3 sacks and one was hand delivered. :kitten:
 
Those college kids didn't seem to have a problem with it last year. He only had 3 sacks and one was hand delivered. :kitten:

Well, I'm not going to argue; but you know what the excuse/reason people give for that is. It's looking like we are going to take him, so I sure hope you are wrong and that he was double-teamed an awful lot. Regardless, I will be ticked if he's taken #1 and gets 3 sacks a year (or less).
 
Apologies to the OP, but this felt like the better option to pose this question since all we can do is sit on our hands until the draft...

Which players would we be talking about if Gary Kubiak & Company had not been ushered out the door...?

Same prospects at the top?

How would the media be valuing/projecting the prospects differently for us?

I know it's looking backward, a time waster, but I wonder how different it would be?

:runaway:

If Kubiak were here, I believe Manziel would definitely be in play, & QB would be a much bigger issue. I also believe our mocks would be more offensive focused, because even with the holes on defense, the QB, the RT, & the offensive scheme as a whole came into question last season.

I still want an offense driven draft, but I think it would be more of a national talking point if Kubiak were still here.
 
Well, I'm not going to argue; but you know what the excuse/reason people give for that is. It's looking like we are going to take him, so I sure hope you are wrong and that he was double-teamed an awful lot. Regardless, I will be ticked if he's taken #1 and gets 3 sacks a year (or less).

Speed, power, & quickness.

That's what I need to see from him as a rookie if we were to draft him. Mario didn't have a break out year as a rookie.... neither did Jj Watt (though he came on very strong at the end). It would be nice if he goes on to become DROY, but I'm not expecting him to, since I don't know what kind of 3-4/4-3 nickel packages or whatever Romeo is going to be calling.

If Wade were here & JD was going to be our DeMarcus Ware, I'd think the possibility of DROY would be there. Or the expectation should.
 
Apologies to the OP, but this felt like the better option to pose this question since all we can do is sit on our hands until the draft...

Which players would we be talking about if Gary Kubiak & Company had not been ushered out the door...?

Same prospects at the top?

How would the media be valuing/projecting the prospects differently for us?

I know it's looking backward, a time waster, but I wonder how different it would be?

:runaway:
I wouldn't be nearly as into this draft if Kubiak & Co. were still here.

But, playing along, I think it would be QB, OL and ILB making the most headlines for the Texans. Kubiak would be in live with Manziel,Robinson and Matthews. Phillips would be in love with Barr ( I like him at ILB), Mosely and Roby.
 
Back
Top