Should one draft for need or best available?

[atwater27]

It is a good thing I am not in charge of a team's draft, because I would have a serious problem making up my mind. I want the Broncos to draft a D-lineman in the worst way, and pretty much draft nothing else but linebackers and safeties afterwards. However, the whole draft the best available player mantra rings in my head as well. If I choose the need option, I would say we should definitely trade down and aquire a 2nd or 3rd in the process.
If we go best available, We could have 1st dibs at wide receiver talent, running backs not named McFadden, or one of the 2 undersized linebackers everyone's frothing over. We could go safety or pick the best O-tackle not named Long. We could also potentially have the best corner available, too bad we don't need one.
It is quite a tough decision, because we have a good chance at 12 to get a franchise left tackle or a bonafide franchise running back in Stewart or Mendenhall.
I personally think we should select Clady at 12. If he is selected beforehand, we trade back, I wouldn't even care if it was 32nd as long as we got the best deal for it. Because besides Clady, I really don't see a true need at 12 that we couldn't get at 32. Any thoughts?

[SmilinAssasSin27]

Ya have to have a short list of wanted players...regardless of position. At 12 we will NOT get DT, but other needs include WR, LB, S, OT and to some, RB. Why REACH on Balmer (or Laws as someone else said) when we could get Sweed, Kelly, Connor, Rivers, Phillips, Clady, Otah, Williams, Mendenhall or Stewart? Some say Connor and Phillips are reaches at 12, but at some point they were considered to go even higher than that. They have the talent and are arguably the best at their positions.

Individual names aside though, a GM can't fixate on one position. If they do that, they will get burned. I'm not necessarily a "best player available" guy, but the best player available that fits one of our needs...hell yes. Just cuz some deem our biggest need as DT, does not mean we MUST get a DT at 12.

If everyone on yer short list is gone and ya can't find a trade partner to move back...THEN I would go after the biggest potential individual playmaker/weapon and sort the rest out later on. Some have argued with me, but DeSean jackson, Sweed and the 2 RBs at 12 can all be used to help this team win.

[upindbroncs]

Best available...Playoff teams draft for need. Not banging against the Broncos here, just saying that we've been thinking the same way since the SB wins and have gone the wrong way little by little each year. Mike always thinks we're "one or two players away" it's just not the case.

[dogfish]

the best teams find a balance (generally, the BPA at a position of need), but it also depends on your current roster and what you realistically expect to do. . . if you've got a bunch of aging vets and you think you're close to championship contention, but your window is closing rapidly, it might be worth it to reach a little if you have to in order to fill an immediate need that you think will help you make a run. . . depends on how you value immediate vs. long-term success. . .

if you've got a younger team, IMO it's always best to draft the BPA and think long term. . . but honestly, sometimes i think people take the BPA thing a little too far-- sometimes one prospect might be clearly suprior to another, but frequently you've probably got a few guys at different positions that you have ranked pretty closely on your draft board, and in that case you then take things into consideration such as position of highest need and player intangibles, etc. . . and obviously, different teams place higher premiums on different traits-- do you emphasize leadership and work ethic, or are you primarily concerned with athletic ability? how do you value proven production vs. potential upside? the number of factors involved is one of the meain reasons that drafting is such an inexact science, but the good teams usually get a big edge because they DO draft well consistently, and therefore have stronger, deeper rosters and don't need to reach to fill holes. . . it's a lot easier to actually take the BPA when you're not heading into the draft needing to find 3-6 immediate starters. . . . too bad the broncos are always drafting about 2-3 years behind instead of 2 years ahead. . . . :tsk:

[dogfish]

Ya have to have a short list of wanted players...regardless of position. At 12 we will NOT get DT, but other needs include WR, LB, S, OT and to some, RB. Why REACH on Balmer (or Laws as someone else said) when we could get Sweed, Kelly, Connor, Rivers, Phillips, Clady, Otah, Williams, Mendenhall or Stewart? Some say Connor and Phillips are reaches at 12, but at some point they were considered to go even higher than that. They have the talent and are arguably the best at their positions.

Individual names aside though, a GM can't fixate on one position. If they do that, they will get burned. I'm not necessarily a "best player available" guy, but the best player available that fits one of our needs...hell yes. Just cuz some deem our biggest need as DT, does not mean we MUST get a DT at 12.

If everyone on yer short list is gone and ya can't find a trade partner to move back...THEN I would go after the biggest potential individual playmaker/weapon and sort the rest out later on. Some have argued with me, but DeSean jackson, Sweed and the 2 RBs at 12 can all be used to help this team win.


some = me, for one


:lol:



i was about to high-5 this post until you had to go bringing up desean jackson again. . . . :tsk:

[Tned]

I think it has to be both. If you are drafting 2nd and the best available player is a QB, but you think you have your franchise QB, it wouldn't make sense.

I think at times moving up or back, so that the need and best available merge more closely, makes sense, but you can't just draft the best available player unless you have a need for that player.

[broncohead]

Rivers would fill a need and not be much of a reach. Clady and Sweed would be other options at #12.

[shank]

ditto. bpa at position of need will minimize or eliminate reaches most of the time.

[Lonestar]

I used to be of the BAP until we flat ran out of talent everywhere.
It was OK back near SB years but now the DT position has ONE rookie type at it..The OLINE is a shambles, LB could use some help unless we find someone in FA and most of the studs are gone.. Not deep at WR although I would NEVER use a DAYONE pick on one.. Not after mickeys penchant for picking DUDS over studs there.

Safety needs help for the future.. Kicker seems to be up shit-creek without a paddle.

Let see what position are we deep and talented at?

Head coach!
RB coach!
CB
TE

HELLS BELLS unless it is WR, CB, TE


I guess we can DAFT anyone as BAP.