Wish to make a one time donation? Make it here.

What to do in 1st round?

Out of position for top 3 QB's, what should be 1st round strategy now?


  • Total voters
    132
  • Poll closed .

steelbtexan

Hall of Fame
The talking heads keep mocking him or Fuller to us, and I think I'd be disappointed in either pick at #22. On the bright side, I don't think any of them have ever gotten a Texans first round pick right since Carr
The way I'm looking at this is, although Fuller/Coleman wouldn't be my choice, (I want to fortify the OL Kelly and DL Butler) BOB has worked Fuller/Coleman out and thinks they can be bigger differencemakers. One thing is for sure the Texans need to add speed to their entire roster in the worst way and if they add a WR that can run in the 1st I'm not going to be complaining about the pick.
 

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
The way I'm looking at this is, although Fuller/Coleman wouldn't be my choice, (I want to fortify the OL Kelly and DL Butler) BOB has worked Fuller/Coleman out and thinks they can be bigger differencemakers. One thing is for sure the Texans need to add speed to their entire roster in the worst way and if they add a WR that can run in the 1st I'm not going to be complaining about the pick.
What tells you that Bob thinks they are worth #22?
 

welsh texan

All Pro
The one thing that worries me about this offseason now is Duane Brown's future health.

The OL, in general has not been a strength over the last few years, and whilst you can debate the circular of whether that's poor QB play making the OL seem bad or the other way round, I don't want them hanging on to hope Domanick Davis style and failing to address the issue.

As I see it, if you draft OT, and DB really does make the perfect recovery, you can bump Newton out of RT and improve depth/competition on the interior.

I love the idea that you take a playmaking WR with speed and all works out fine on the OL, but I can't help feeling that ten smart play is to try and protect your big investments at QB, RB, and one of the top WRs in the league already on the roster and maximise their performance by bolstering the trenches.

It seems like yet again we are desperate for instant starters at multiple positions heading into the draft though.
 

Number19

Hall of Fame
The one thing that worries me about this offseason now is Duane Brown's future health.

The OL, in general has not been a strength over the last few years, and whilst you can debate the circular of whether that's poor QB play making the OL seem bad or the other way round, I don't want them hanging on to hope Domanick Davis style and failing to address the issue.

As I see it, if you draft OT, and DB really does make the perfect recovery, you can bump Newton out of RT and improve depth/competition on the interior.

I love the idea that you take a playmaking WR with speed and all works out fine on the OL, but I can't help feeling that ten smart play is to try and protect your big investments at QB, RB, and one of the top WRs in the league already on the roster and maximise their performance by bolstering the trenches.

It seems like yet again we are desperate for instant starters at multiple positions heading into the draft though.
CnD, on the NFL thread, posted on Victor Cruz, who had the same injury as DB. Ten months of initial rehab followed by a year of numerous problems and at best was maybe 75%. Finally now claims to be 100% but upcoming OTA's and training camp will put his recovery to the test.

I believe DB's initial rehab has him missing almost all of training camp. I don't see how he can possibly be back into playing shape before mid-season.

Drafting Spriggs in the first is very popular. But if the organization goes WR at #22. a decision I support, then IMO we absolutely need to take an OT at 2/52. Le'Raven Clark is my pick, but it is questionable if he will be there for us. If he is off the board, my alternate is Willie Beavers. Bah007 actually has Beavers rated higher than Clark.
 

Wolf6151

All Pro
The one thing that worries me about this offseason now is Duane Brown's future health.

The OL, in general has not been a strength over the last few years, and whilst you can debate the circular of whether that's poor QB play making the OL seem bad or the other way round, I don't want them hanging on to hope Domanick Davis style and failing to address the issue.

As I see it, if you draft OT, and DB really does make the perfect recovery, you can bump Newton out of RT and improve depth/competition on the interior.

I love the idea that you take a playmaking WR with speed and all works out fine on the OL, but I can't help feeling that ten smart play is to try and protect your big investments at QB, RB, and one of the top WRs in the league already on the roster and maximise their performance by bolstering the trenches.

It seems like yet again we are desperate for instant starters at multiple positions heading into the draft though.

Amen...Keep preaching this. I've been saying the same thing for a few months now. Our O-line as it stands right now is a hot mess. Brown has a serious injury that no one knows if he'll make it back from or at what level of play, XSF is hit or miss and hasn't proven anything to anyone at LG with Aboushi backing him up, Bergstrom at C has been a career backup, I hear good things about Jeff Allen at RG but there's not history or cohesion with the Texans, and Derek Newton was just plain bad last season and only has 1 good season out of 5. An OT in the 1st would add insurance against Brown's injury or vastly improve us at RT so that Newton can be quality depth on the interior O-line where he belongs.
 

Scooter

Funky
I'll say again (and again and again), ILB - quarterback on defense - is our single greatest need (assuming OZ doesn't eff it up). Our best player is competent and trying to get healthy enough to be good, and won't return to being great. His next in line is still working on competence. And behind those two hold nothing, except for the favorite word of fans - potential.

Lots of names at the position. Lots of fan loving potential. Lots of names that in comparison 'don't suck' ... but who are we comparing them to in order to get that designation? It's certainly not against Kuechly, Davis, Trevathon, Marshall, Barrett, Wright, Wagner, Irvin, Smith, Collins, Hightower, Jones. Apologies if you skipped the playoffs and don't recognize those names, but they lead the past 4 teams to a Superbowl appearance. Early in 2012 Cushing was in discussion for best in the league ... he's currently our best linebacker and isn't in the same league as this 12 - and is MUCH further down the list if we were to include more than 4 teams.

We may seem to be OK at the position, but only because our best is being compared to 'doesn't suck'. Makes him look great and crap look competent. Compare our crap to everyone else's and see where we really stand.
 

DocBar

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
The talking heads keep mocking him or Fuller to us, and I think I'd be disappointed in either pick at #22. On the bright side, I don't think any of them have ever gotten a Texans first round pick right since Carr
A bunch nailed it with Mario Williams. On a side note, who has the best record in mock drafts outside of the top 5?
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
I'll say again (and again and again), ILB - quarterback on defense - is our single greatest need (assuming OZ doesn't eff it up). Our best player is competent and trying to get healthy enough to be good, and won't return to being great. His next in line is still working on competence. And behind those two hold nothing, except for the favorite word of fans - potential.

Lots of names at the position. Lots of fan loving potential. Lots of names that in comparison 'don't suck' ... but who are we comparing them to in order to get that designation? It's certainly not against Kuechly, Davis, Trevathon, Marshall, Barrett, Wright, Wagner, Irvin, Smith, Collins, Hightower, Jones. Apologies if you skipped the playoffs and don't recognize those names, but they lead the past 4 teams to a Superbowl appearance. Early in 2012 Cushing was in discussion for best in the league ... he's currently our best linebacker and isn't in the same league as this 12 - and is MUCH further down the list if we were to include more than 4 teams.

We may seem to be OK at the position, but only because our best is being compared to 'doesn't suck'. Makes him look great and crap look competent. Compare our crap to everyone else's and see where we really stand.
Outside of they guy from 'Bama, who is first round material among ILB prospects? I thought most were solid 2-4 round picks.

And you do know that half of the guys you listed are OLB's, not ILB's. Apples to Oranges.
 

Scooter

Funky
Outside of they guy from 'Bama, who is first round material among ILB prospects? I thought most were solid 2-4 round picks.

And you do know that half of the guys you listed are OLB's, not ILB's. Apples to Oranges.
I don't know who's available because I don't give enough shits to follow the draft this time. If there isn't a talent at the position, then there simply isnt. But, there always is and they are always overlooked.

... and no, YOU don't know that the entirety of that list is tasked with as much coverage and run responsibility as they are blitz. 5 of the 12 are linebackers in a 43 defense, with Bruce Irvin being not exactly the 6th (2 interceptions and 6.5 sacks in 2015 with a DE/LB designation). If I wanted to include OLB's, this list would've been about 20 deep with the likes of Demarcus Ware, Von Miller, Rob Ninkovich and more. I only included those in a comparable position ... and respect is lost for not realizing that.

That's the ignorance that thinks we're doing just fine with Cushing and McKinney and whoever else is signed at a minimum behind them.
 
Last edited:

sandman

Brexit Advisor
I don't know who's available because I don't give enough shits to follow the draft this time. If there isn't a talent at the position, then there simply isnt. But, there always is and they are always overlooked.

... and no, YOU don't know that the entirety of that list is tasked with as much coverage and run responsibility as they are blitz. 5 of the 12 are linebackers in a 43 defense, with Bruce Irvin being not exactly the 6th (2 interceptions and 6.5 sacks in 2015 with a DE/LB designation). If I wanted to include OLB's, this list would've been about 20 deep with the likes of Demarcus Ware, Von Miller, Rob Ninkovich and more. I only included those in a comparable position ... and respect is lost for not realizing that.

That's the ignorance that thinks we're doing just fine with Cushing and McKinney and whoever else is signed at a minimum behind them.
I don't recall stating where we're doing just fine with Cushing and McKinney and whoever else is signed at a minimum behind them. What I did state was that ILB doesn't seem to be a loaded position at the top of the draft for the #22 pick so can we really address what you consider our single biggest need. Not sure that was worthy of such a salty reply, but whatever.
 

Scooter

Funky
I don't recall stating where we're doing just fine with Cushing and McKinney and whoever else is signed at a minimum behind them. What I did state was that ILB doesn't seem to be a loaded position at the top of the draft for the #22 pick so can we really address what you consider our single biggest need. Not sure that was worthy of such a salty reply, but whatever.
With as much as I've had to drink, every response is salty. :D

But, I replied to your post - to the availability of draft prospects as well as the second line regarding apples and oranges, and how the thought process is being applied by many.
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
The MIKE ILB position in a 34 is the one that you're usually going to have to use an earlier pick for. It requires the more traditional skill set. The good news is we got that pick out of the way last year with McKinney. When Cushing is gone I have no doubt the staff sees McKinney as the MIKE.

That leaves the WILL ILB position open. This position requires more versatility but the good news is that the specific skill set doesn't seem to be as desirable, so these guys tend to drop just a little bit. Some systems are even going away from a true LB here and using a jumbo S instead.

The guy I really like in this draft is Nick Kwiatkoski from West Virginia. He's a former S that has also played all three traditional LB spots. He's not a true MLB but possesses the skills necessary to play inside, and he also provides the diverse skill set the 34 WILL position requires.
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
Nothing

I'm just saying I wont have a problem if WR is the pick, and wont if OL/DL are the pick.
How would you feel about Shepard at #22? BOB has worked him out also. He doesn't provide the pure speed that the other two do but he's more well-rounded and a more natural receiver.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
With as much as I've had to drink, every response is salty. :D

But, I replied to your post - to the availability of draft prospects as well as the second line regarding apples and oranges, and how the thought process is being applied by many.
For the record, outside of WR, if they utilized every pick to draft up the middle with interior line on both sides and LB's, I'm not going to complain at all.
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
CnD, on the NFL thread, posted on Victor Cruz, who had the same injury as DB. Ten months of initial rehab followed by a year of numerous problems and at best was maybe 75%. Finally now claims to be 100% but upcoming OTA's and training camp will put his recovery to the test.

I believe DB's initial rehab has him missing almost all of training camp. I don't see how he can possibly be back into playing shape before mid-season.

Drafting Spriggs in the first is very popular. But if the organization goes WR at #22. a decision I support, then IMO we absolutely need to take an OT at 2/52. Le'Raven Clark is my pick, but it is questionable if he will be there for us. If he is off the board, my alternate is Willie Beavers. Bah007 actually has Beavers rated higher than Clark.
I'll touch on this. The more I watched Clark the less I liked him. He can't pass block to save his life. The system at Texas Tech helped him out tremendously. They split the OL so far apart and get rid of the ball so quickly that it's tough for a DE to get a sack even with a free run, and yet Clark still gave up plenty.

I'd prefer a guy like Spriggs who can mirror and protect the QB, but needs to work on his run blocking. I have no use for an OT in today's game that can run block but not protect.

Having said that, Clark's size, length, and athleticism has always been enticing. And it still is. But he's sitting for quite a while, and there's no guarantee that he'll become the pass protector we need.

That's why I prefer Beavers, and quite a few others as well.
 

IDEXAN

Hall of Fame
I'd prefer a guy like Spriggs who can mirror and protect the QB, but needs to work on his run blocking. I have no use for an OT in today's game that can run block but not protect.

Having said that, Clark's size, length, and athleticism has always been enticing. And it still is. But he's sitting for quite a while, and there's no guarantee that he'll become the pass protector we need.

That's why I prefer Beavers, and quite a few others as well.
I've read that Spriggs is more of a zone type tackle ? Dunno how Billy would like that in his offense ? But we definitely sure need help at OT, especially with the uncertainty bout Duane Browns re his recovery from serious injury. But we know the top prospects like Decker & Cronkin will be long gone by 22.
 

beerlover

Hall of Fame
Best player available is the one who makes Brock Osweiler the best QB he can be. Think about it. Which position is the most important to a QB success? Do Texans have the best tool currently on their roster to satisfy this need? Then ask yourself is O'Brians staff focused & aware this is their priority need early in this draft?
 
Last edited:

HOU-TEX

Ah, Football!
How would you feel about Shepard at #22? BOB has worked him out also. He doesn't provide the pure speed that the other two do but he's more well-rounded and a more natural receiver.
I'd have no problem taking Shepard. Doctson would be my first choice at WR, but have Shepard right up there with him.

I can't see why someone would get upset at whomever they took at 22, unless they choose a QB or maybe OLB. A starter or depth is needed across the board. Then again, most of those cats they show unhappy at the draft party are either clueless, over-served or over-served and clueless
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
I've read that Spriggs is more of a zone type tackle ? Dunno how Billy would like that in his offense ? But we definitely sure need help at OT, especially with the uncertainty bout Duane Browns re his recovery from serious injury. But we know the top prospects like Decker & Cronkin will be long gone by 22.
Yes, Spriggs would operate best in a zone system. But we run way more zone than people seem to think. I think people compare this system to Kubiak's and just assume that we're a power team because Kubiak ran zone on virtually every play and we don't. Obviously OB doesn't run zone the same way that Kubiak does but we still use it a lot. We're more of a mesh between power and zone. Devlin cut his teeth at the college level in a power system but he ran a lot of zone with the Jets. And Godsey and OB are both heavily connected to the Ferentz coaching tree, who is pretty much considered the developer of the modern day zone blocking system.
 

steelbtexan

Hall of Fame
How would you feel about Shepard at #22? BOB has worked him out also. He doesn't provide the pure speed that the other two do but he's more well-rounded and a more natural receiver.
Not jazzed about the pick but if that's who BOB thinks fits his system best then I'm on board with the pick.

With that said, if Shepard fails I'm sure I would hear the same old diatribe from some posters (Not you) about how teams miss on players and look at their overall draft record etc.... Meanwhile I will be paying for another 9-7/7-9 team if not worse.
 

Number19

Hall of Fame
The MIKE ILB position in a 34 is the one that you're usually going to have to use an earlier pick for. It requires the more traditional skill set. The good news is we got that pick out of the way last year with McKinney. When Cushing is gone I have no doubt the staff sees McKinney as the MIKE.

That leaves the WILL ILB position open. This position requires more versatility but the good news is that the specific skill set doesn't seem to be as desirable, so these guys tend to drop just a little bit. Some systems are even going away from a true LB here and using a jumbo S instead.

The guy I really like in this draft is Nick Kwiatkoski from West Virginia. He's a former S that has also played all three traditional LB spots. He's not a true MLB but possesses the skills necessary to play inside, and he also provides the diverse skill set the 34 WILL position requires.
I like Kwiatkoski, too. You have him rated as a third round talent. The board I used to mock has him as a late third day pick. I have him penciled in as my 6/195 selection. If he falls that far he'll be a steal.
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
Not jazzed about the pick but if that's who BOB thinks fits his system best then I'm on board with the pick.

With that said, if Shepard fails I'm sure I would hear the same old diatribe from some posters (Not you) about how teams miss on players and look at their overall draft record etc.... Meanwhile I will be paying for another 9-7/7-9 team if not worse.
Not saying I disagree but our history suggests that we're pretty likely to hit on the first round pick. The overall draft record after the first round is pretty mediocre.
 

Number19

Hall of Fame
How would you feel about Shepard at #22? BOB has worked him out also. He doesn't provide the pure speed that the other two do but he's more well-rounded and a more natural receiver.
Shephard (I've seen this guy's name spelled several different ways) is my second choice as a receiver. Up until now I've really not considered Doctson because I thought he'd be off the board at #22. But if Shephard is my guy, I think I'd try to trade down from 22.
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
I think we're better off at WR than most people seem to. I don't think WR is an absolute necessity at #22. But having said that, if Doctson is on the board that pick is a slam dunk to me. Unfortunately, I don't think he will be.

It depends on who's available but I'd be happy with Shepard. A trade down would be preferable, even if we don't get a good deal but still get our guy plus an additional asset.
 

Number19

Hall of Fame
I'll touch on this. The more I watched Clark the less I liked him. He can't pass block to save his life. The system at Texas Tech helped him out tremendously. They split the OL so far apart and get rid of the ball so quickly that it's tough for a DE to get a sack even with a free run, and yet Clark still gave up plenty.

I'd prefer a guy like Spriggs who can mirror and protect the QB, but needs to work on his run blocking. I have no use for an OT in today's game that can run block but not protect.

Having said that, Clark's size, length, and athleticism has always been enticing. And it still is. But he's sitting for quite a while, and there's no guarantee that he'll become the pass protector we need.

That's why I prefer Beavers, and quite a few others as well.
What's confusing to me is that every analysis I've read doesn't see Clark as you do. Maybe they are just blinded by his numbers and "potential". Anyways I do like Beavers and I hope the organization is diligent in their homework. Let's not have any mistakes.
 
Last edited:

sandman

Brexit Advisor
Are the O-line, D-line or LB talents that are projected as 1st round significantly better than 2nd/3rd round projections? If there are no DBrowns or Cushings waiting at #22 as an obvious stud, is it better to trade back and get more really good picks that will equate to starters and depth, or settle for a stud-ish player to fill a need? Obvious this ignores a BPA being available at any other position, but for the sake of reference. How do you handle this if you are committed to certain positions and they are not grading out well in the first round (or already selected)?
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
What's confusing to me is that every analysis I've read does' see Clark as you do. Maybe they are just blinded by his numbers and "potential". Anyways I do like Beavers and I hope the organization is diligent in their homework. Let's not have any mistakes.
I'll admit that I've been guilty of this myself at times, but every coach thinks that he can fix a player. So if they see a guy with severe flaws but incredible natural traits they will almost always say give me that guy and I'll fix him. That's why at the professional level (big financial investment) you need a guy (GM) that can work with the coaches and sort out which risks are worth it and which ones aren't. A lot of times the player can't be "fixed" and it would have been a better investment to take a safer player with a lower "ceiling".

A lot of scouts place way more emphasis on natural traits than they do on technique and football-specific skills, because the first can't be taught and the second one can. I prefer a more even measure. Natural traits are important, and some skills don't matter to me as much as others. But in this specific case, it's a huge red flag to me that a guy with LT athleticism struggles with pass blocking, especially since that is the most important skill required for his projection to the next level.
 
Last edited:

DocBar

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
Are the O-line, D-line or LB talents that are projected as 1st round significantly better than 2nd/3rd round projections? If there are no DBrowns or Cushings waiting at #22 as an obvious stud, is it better to trade back and get more really good picks that will equate to starters and depth, or settle for a stud-ish player to fill a need? Obvious this ignores a BPA being available at any other position, but for the sake of reference. How do you handle this if you are committed to certain positions and they are not grading out well in the first round (or already selected)?
If I couldn't find a satisfactory trade partner, I'd just go BPA, regardless of position.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
If I couldn't find a satisfactory trade partner, I'd just go BPA, regardless of position.
Obviously. But if you could, what is the value of #22 to trade down if your positions of need are not grading out well to justify a #22 pick? Or maybe there is a guy worthy of #22, but the draft is so deep you'd rather get two or three really good players than one very good one. Do thoughts like this ever happen in the war rooms, or is it always "grab a stud if you can get a stud, regardless"?
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
Are the O-line, D-line or LB talents that are projected as 1st round significantly better than 2nd/3rd round projections? If there are no DBrowns or Cushings waiting at #22 as an obvious stud, is it better to trade back and get more really good picks that will equate to starters and depth, or settle for a stud-ish player to fill a need? Obvious this ignores a BPA being available at any other position, but for the sake of reference. How do you handle this if you are committed to certain positions and they are not grading out well in the first round (or already selected)?
You stay strict to your board or you make mistakes.

Most people think that BPA means just taking the top talent available. That's not how it works. Your needs are taken into account when you make your board. Your system also needs to be taken into account when considering the skill set of the specific player. That was my big hang-up on the Clowney pick. Obviously he was the most "talented" player in the draft, but BPA for our team would have been Mack. I said it then and I still believe it. If you disregard their respective "talent" levels and look purely at what they would be capable of in our specific system with their specific skill sets then it was obvious to me that Mack would have been the better player on our specific team. Maybe the other 31 teams all would have had Clowney ranked higher, but that shouldn't change how you see their strengths and weaknesses fitting into your specific roster.

I realize that didn't directly answer your question but I'm kind of building up to a point (trying to, at least).

If your pick comes up and the top of your board looks like this:
S Joseph
C Kelly
WR Coleman

You take Joseph. You don't skip over him for Kelly because you need a Center. Because your need for a Center should have already been accounted for when you made that board. If your pick comes up and you didn't have any of those guys graded at #22 then you try to make a move back if you can.

As for the original question, I see a steep drop-off at OT after the top four. Very steep. In fact, the next three or four guys that will go after them aren't hardly better than the next three or four after them. So if we don't get one of the top four I think it's a better use of resources to wait until the third round.

LB is the same. After Jack and Ragland there is nothing until the third or fourth round.

DL is deep in every round all the way through the draft. This class has insane depth on the DL.
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
Obviously. But if you could, what is the value of #22 to trade down if your positions of need are not grading out well to justify a #22 pick? Or maybe there is a guy worthy of #22, but the draft is so deep you'd rather get two or three really good players than one very good one. Do thoughts like this ever happen in the war rooms, or is it always "grab a stud if you can get a stud, regardless"?
I would say yes. Some of the first round DL guys won't go as high as they deserve because teams know that the class is loaded with guys and they can still get a very good player later on. Contrast that with OT, where I think the top four will go quickly because the class drops off big time after them.

Your other questions should have already been addressed by the war room when the board was set. The depth of each position is very important in deciding how the players should be valued. It's more than just listing players in terms of how talented they are.
 

sandman

Brexit Advisor
You stay strict to your board or you make mistakes.

Most people think that BPA means just taking the top talent available. That's not how it works. Your needs are taken into account when you make your board. Your system also needs to be taken into account when considering the skill set of the specific player. That was my big hang-up on the Clowney pick. Obviously he was the most "talented" player in the draft, but BPA for our team would have been Mack. I said it then and I still believe it. If you disregard their respective "talent" levels and look purely at what they would be capable of in our specific system with their specific skill sets then it was obvious to me that Mack would have been the better player on our specific team. Maybe the other 31 teams all would have had Clowney ranked higher, but that shouldn't change how you see their strengths and weaknesses fitting into your specific roster.

I realize that didn't directly answer your question but I'm kind of building up to a point (trying to, at least).

If your pick comes up and the top of your board looks like this:
S Joseph
C Kelly
WR Coleman

You take Joseph. You don't skip over him for Kelly because you need a Center. Because your need for a Center should have already been accounted for when you made that board. If your pick comes up and you didn't have any of those guys graded at #22 then you try to make a move back if you can.

As for the original question, I see a steep drop-off at OT after the top four. Very steep. In fact, the next three or four guys that will go after them aren't hardly better than the next three or four after them. So if we don't get one of the top four I think it's a better use of resources to wait until the third round.

LB is the same. After Jack and Ragland there is nothing until the third or fourth round.

DL is deep in every round all the way through the draft. This class has insane depth on the DL.
First, thanks for the lesson.

Second, that was what I was wanted to hear about quality at OL, DL and LB down the draft. Seems to me this is the season that Rick Smith proves he can find the talent in Rounds 2-4, especially for the interior defense.
 

Texian

Hall of Fame
Today, Rick Smith will give his pre draft sermon. He will say the same thing he has for the last nine years, we've to stay true to our board, you can't reach for a need, we can't draft based on potential or target a specific position. We will remain calm and disciplined and take the best player available with our pick. Usually true to form once the draft starts, the Texans draft will be contrary to almost everything in Smith's pre draft speech. Count on it!

I expect a NT early on to try and correct the mistake made with Nix.
 

DocBar

Hall of Fame
Contributor's Club
Obviously. But if you could, what is the value of #22 to trade down if your positions of need are not grading out well to justify a #22 pick? Or maybe there is a guy worthy of #22, but the draft is so deep you'd rather get two or three really good players than one very good one. Do thoughts like this ever happen in the war rooms, or is it always "grab a stud if you can get a stud, regardless"?
It should be as easy as using the draft value chart then rolling the dice and hoping the 2 or 3 guys your targeting are there when your turns come around.I'm more of a BPA than trade down person and I'm definitely not a trade up person.
 

Shishkabob

All Pro
Today, Rick Smith will give his pre draft sermon. He will say the same thing he has for the last nine years, we've to stay true to our board, you can't reach for a need, we can't draft based on potential or target a specific position. We will remain calm and disciplined and take the best player available with our pick. Usually true to form once the draft starts, the Texans draft will be contrary to almost everything in Smith's pre draft speech. Count on it!

I expect a NT early on to try and correct the mistake made with Nix.
honestly I would love to get Billings or Butler at 22, depending on who is left but I have both rated higher then Spriggs although I dont think I would mind him either
 

beerlover

Hall of Fame
Today, Rick Smith will give his pre draft sermon. He will say the same thing he has for the last nine years, we've to stay true to our board, you can't reach for a need, we can't draft based on potential or target a specific position. We will remain calm and disciplined and take the best player available with our pick. Usually true to form once the draft starts, the Texans draft will be contrary to almost everything in Smith's pre draft speech. Count on it!

I expect a NT early on to try and correct the mistake made with Nix.
The fact they missed on Nix III doesn't concern you about their DL evaluation process along with Clowney, that it's ok to throw a first @ position on Defense over taking care of their "New" franchise QB Brock Osweiler?
 

badboy

Hall of Fame
How would you feel about Shepard at #22? BOB has worked him out also. He doesn't provide the pure speed that the other two do but he's more well-rounded and a more natural receiver.
4.48 isn't slow. Factor in skills and he is very good player. Some recent mocks have Texans taking first WR off board so if wanted we can get a very good player later in 1 or 2.
 

beerlover

Hall of Fame
You stay strict to your board or you make mistakes.

Most people think that BPA means just taking the top talent available. That's not how it works. Your needs are taken into account when you make your board. Your system also needs to be taken into account when considering the skill set of the specific player. That was my big hang-up on the Clowney pick. Obviously he was the most "talented" player in the draft, but BPA for our team would have been Mack. I said it then and I still believe it. If you disregard their respective "talent" levels and look purely at what they would be capable of in our specific system with their specific skill sets then it was obvious to me that Mack would have been the better player on our specific team. Maybe the other 31 teams all would have had Clowney ranked higher, but that shouldn't change how you see their strengths and weaknesses fitting into your specific roster.

I realize that didn't directly answer your question but I'm kind of building up to a point (trying to, at least).

If your pick comes up and the top of your board looks like this:
S Joseph
C Kelly
WR Coleman

You take Joseph. You don't skip over him for Kelly because you need a Center. Because your need for a Center should have already been accounted for when you made that board. If your pick comes up and you didn't have any of those guys graded at #22 then you try to make a move back if you can.

As for the original question, I see a steep drop-off at OT after the top four. Very steep. In fact, the next three or four guys that will go after them aren't hardly better than the next three or four after them. So if we don't get one of the top four I think it's a better use of resources to wait until the third round.

LB is the same. After Jack and Ragland there is nothing until the third or fourth round.

DL is deep in every round all the way through the draft. This class has insane depth on the DL.
Same if top on their board looks like?

Kelly
Coleman
Joseph
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
Same if top on their board looks like?

Kelly
Coleman
Joseph
Take Kelly. In this scenario you have weighed talent, need, and fit and concluded that Kelly creates the biggest positive impact for the team. If that's what your board looks like you have to make sure you don't panic and jump for Coleman just because we want to add a speed element to the offense for our new QB. Perhaps Joseph is even the best "talent" of the three. But you have to take everything into account, not just "talent". Sometimes the "most talented" player is not the "best" player. It depends on who is making the pick.

I think BPA should really read BPAFYT.

Best Player Available FOR YOUR TEAM.
 

bah007

Hall of Fame
4.48 isn't slow. Factor in skills and he is very good player. Some recent mocks have Texans taking first WR off board so if wanted we can get a very good player later in 1 or 2.
You don't have to sell me on Shepard. I'm probably his biggest fan on this board. I agree that a good WR can still be had after the first. That's why I don't think we absolutely have to take one there.
 


Top