PDA

View Full Version : why is "NEED" a 4 letter word for NFL execs?



Chef Zambini
04-24-2013, 12:05 PM
I find it all too silly that NFL execs refuse to use the word "NEED" when discribing their draft selections.
yet, they themselves will talk about how the guy can step right in and start, fill a hole,bring stability to the position, round out our roster, make an emmediate impact, they will use almost any cliche or phrase to quantify their selection, but NEVER , ever would they use the word NEED !
silly.

BroncoJoe
04-24-2013, 12:07 PM
silly.

I agree.

MOtorboat
04-24-2013, 12:09 PM
Taking anything an exec says at face value during draft week is silly.

Ravage!!!
04-24-2013, 12:13 PM
For a couple reasons. 1) Unless you don't have ANYONE on the roster that can play that position, you don't really "need" one. You may want a different one, you might not like the player already at that position, or feel you can improve with someone else...but you don't "need" one. 2) NO GM wants any player to feel that the franchise "NEEDS" them. The franchise might LOVE them, want them, and be better with them on the roster, but no GM/coach/owner wants to say that particular player is a "need." 3) If you don't get another player to fill that particular position in the draft, the GM/coach still has to deal with the player that is playing said position. Let the media and fans talk about how they "need" to replace you, but the coach/GM is talking about improving withOUT a "need".... but a possible want.

Chef Zambini
04-24-2013, 12:22 PM
For a couple reasons. 1) Unless you don't have ANYONE on the roster that can play that position, you don't really "need" one. You may want a different one, you might not like the player already at that position, or feel you can improve with someone else...but you don't "need" one. 2) NO GM wants any player to feel that the franchise "NEEDS" them. The franchise might LOVE them, want them, and be better with them on the roster, but no GM/coach/owner wants to say that particular player is a "need." 3) If you don't get another player to fill that particular position in the draft, the GM/coach still has to deal with the player that is playing said position. Let the media and fans talk about how they "need" to replace you, but the coach/GM is talking about improving withOUT a "need".... but a possible want. a grewat explanation but really just semantics, isnt it rav?
when the pick is made, the talking heads will almost emmediatly talk about how the pick 'fills a NEED or fails to adress a NEED.
the media uses the term freely, evenformer players and execs, but the dudes making selections avoid the specific phrase as if it were cursed.
if we played a drinking game on draft day, need would have us drunk before the tenth pick, yet if it only counted when an NFL exec used the phrase, we would be sober until round 6 !

BroncoJoe
04-24-2013, 12:30 PM
Who cares?

Ravage!!!
04-24-2013, 12:46 PM
a grewat explanation but really just semantics, isnt it rav?
when the pick is made, the talking heads will almost emmediatly talk about how the pick 'fills a NEED or fails to adress a NEED.
the media uses the term freely, evenformer players and execs, but the dudes making selections avoid the specific phrase as if it were cursed.
if we played a drinking game on draft day, need would have us drunk before the tenth pick, yet if it only counted when an NFL exec used the phrase, we would be sober until round 6 !

Semantics.... or perspective. The media and fans think their wants are "needs." Ask some of the fans here, and we "need" to replace Rahime. Is that really a "need"..or simply them "wanting" that player replaced? The media is no different. One coach/GM might feel that they can win with a particular QB, while the media feels they "need" to replace that QB in order to be a contender.

Joe feels that the Broncos "needed" to spend the money on other positions and keep Tebow.

I may want to replace a player with someone BETTER, because you can never have too many future HoF'ers on the field, but I may not really NEED to replace that player. However, fans/media will use "need" in place of "want" (or vice versa)..because to them its the same thing.

Chef Zambini
04-24-2013, 01:02 PM
rav, you do well to elaborate between actual NEED and want.
but my point is that execs, REGARDLESS of the distinction have a taboo mentaLITY ABOUT USING THE PHRASE "need".
If a teams place kicker suffered a career ending car accident just days before the draft, you still would NEVER hear the teams personnel director say we NEED a placekicker.

slim
04-24-2013, 01:16 PM
I am glad Elway is a BPA guy.

The fact that Zam is against it makes me sure it is the right approach.

Chef Zambini
04-24-2013, 01:32 PM
BPA is a smokescreen.
ALL teams adress their NEEDS, including elway and the broncos!
I just heard spillman, the GM for the vikings actually say, "...we are looking for ways to address all our NEEDS"
honesty is so refreshing.
von was the BPA. but who is gonna say we diddnt NEED a pass rusher?
free agency, PFM, BPA, but what position held a greater NEED for our broncos than QB?
I just find it comical if not disingenuous that an EXEC like elway and OTHERS resist using the term NEED !
when in actuality it is at the very heart of the selection process !

BroncoWave
04-24-2013, 02:17 PM
For a couple reasons. 1) Unless you don't have ANYONE on the roster that can play that position, you don't really "need" one. You may want a different one, you might not like the player already at that position, or feel you can improve with someone else...but you don't "need" one. 2) NO GM wants any player to feel that the franchise "NEEDS" them. The franchise might LOVE them, want them, and be better with them on the roster, but no GM/coach/owner wants to say that particular player is a "need." 3) If you don't get another player to fill that particular position in the draft, the GM/coach still has to deal with the player that is playing said position. Let the media and fans talk about how they "need" to replace you, but the coach/GM is talking about improving withOUT a "need".... but a possible want.

I'm sure there were times when you said we NEED a new QB when Tebow was our QB.

Davii
04-24-2013, 02:36 PM
I'm sure there were times when you said we NEED a new QB when Tebow was our QB.

I'm sure there were times Elway said it, just not where we could hear it.

Ravage!!!
04-24-2013, 02:39 PM
rav, you do well to elaborate between actual NEED and want.
but my point is that execs, REGARDLESS of the distinction have a taboo mentaLITY ABOUT USING THE PHRASE "need".
If a teams place kicker suffered a career ending car accident just days before the draft, you still would NEVER hear the teams personnel director say we NEED a placekicker.

I've expressed that. I'm saying that the execs... coaches/GMs/Owners... NEVER want to make a position feel as if its a need, or make a single individual appear to be "needed"...and have to account for the player they are replacing. Thus, they (the execs)know that the position isn't a NEED, its a want. As I said, its not semantics or a taboo, but purely perspective. No one is NEEDED, but they could be WANTED.

Poet
04-24-2013, 03:10 PM
I think most teams draft for best player available. Where it gets murky is if the BPA on their board doesn't fit their scheme or has a concern. So no, it's not just strictly BPA all the time, but that is the general consensus amongst teams.

Ravage!!!
04-24-2013, 03:24 PM
I think most teams draft for best player available. Where it gets murky is if the BPA on their board doesn't fit their scheme or has a concern. So no, it's not just strictly BPA all the time, but that is the general consensus amongst teams.

Or if it's filled, or you just used a 1st round pick on the same position the year before. I think there are many reasons as to why it can't be strictly BPA. It has to go hand-in-hand with team needs.

Poet
04-24-2013, 03:33 PM
Or if it's filled, or you just used a 1st round pick on the same position the year before. I think there are many reasons as to why it can't be strictly BPA. It has to go hand-in-hand with team needs.

The draft is a balancing act. The awful teams and the best teams have the luxury of drafting for a true BPA. Within reason, of course.

Chef Zambini
04-24-2013, 04:28 PM
anyone think the broncos will draft either a WR or QB in the first round?
what if geno smith and austin are available?
BPA is horseshit.

MOtorboat
04-24-2013, 06:07 PM
anyone think the broncos will draft either a WR or QB in the first round?
what if geno smith and austin are available?
BPA is horseshit.

Oh good grief, who gives a shit?

SR
04-24-2013, 06:29 PM
anyone think the broncos will draft either a WR or QB in the first round?
what if geno smith and austin are available?
BPA is horseshit.

Your interpretation of best player available is clearly defunct.

Poet
04-24-2013, 06:38 PM
Elway just said that if Geno was available the Broncos would draft him. If Tavon Austin was available at 28 - he won't be - the Broncos would snap pick him. They don't need a LT, but you don't think Fisher or Luke J. would be picked by Denver if he was on the board? Really? Come on Zam, you're just being stubborn on this one.

MOtorboat
04-24-2013, 07:12 PM
Elway just said that if Geno was available the Broncos would draft him.

I missed this...

He was asked yesterday about "cornerbacks" and he thought the reporter said "quarterbacks" and he said that Geno was a big, athletic guy before the reporter stopped him, and then never elaborated.

He went on to say Osweiler would be the top, or near the top of this draft class at quarterback and would have been a first round pick.

Nomad
04-24-2013, 07:36 PM
It would be really entertaining here at BF to see Elway draft a kicker with the 1st:lol:

I bought my whine and cheese so when Elway drafts someone I don't agree with:D

BTW....Elway's done a good job since being here as VP

Thnikkaman
04-24-2013, 09:14 PM
http://i.minus.com/iKXrL9s7aTAuh.gif

Chef Zambini
04-25-2013, 10:12 AM
elway has been great!
he should have been exec of the year !
cant wait to see what he does in this years draft, I hope he is a stones fan !

Joel
04-25-2013, 09:51 PM
The draft is a balancing act. The awful teams and the best teams have the luxury of drafting for a true BPA. Within reason, of course.
The best teams do NOT have the luxury of drafting the BPA, not unless they package most/all their top picks to trade up for him, usually insanity for any team good enough everywhere to make a deep playoff run. Rav makes good arguments why GMs won't utter the word "need" at gunpoint, at least not until confident it's been addressed for the foreseeable future. However, my perception, right or wrong, is the vast majority of people suffer from a misunderstanding of the basic English in the phrase "best player available."

It doesn't mean the best player LEFT at any given pick: It means the best player AVAILABLE in any given draft. That's regardless of whether a team has or can acquire the top 3-5 pick needed to land him before someone else beats them to the punch. Consequently, it also means any team without at least a top ten pick can write off the BPA: SOMEONE will take all the best ones long before their turn.

That doesn't mean a low first round pick can't land an all around solid player, even a likely HoFer; that depends as much on a drafts overall quality as where a team picks. The BPA's gone, but it's still possible to prioritize talent over need. It's just not EFFICIENT, because a contenders holes are few but critical, so, although age and free agency threaten several more imminent ones, there are few places even the BPA could start immediately. Any team spending a first round pick on a backup better get a QB to replace an ancient/awful starter. Good teams get late picks, and so should spend them on becoming/remaining champs.

How often does it happen, well, knowing that requires accurately discerning GM behavior often wildly at odds with what they tell fans, players and competitors through the press. Sometimes it's more obvious than others; if a team watched its starting receiver corps drop a half dozen TD passes in two playoff games and went home in the divisional round, they probably wouldn't want the BPA to replace a couple DEs in their mid-twenties with multiple Pro Bowls, even if they had the top five pick to get him (which they don't.)

I suspect we don't hear about "need" much anymore precisely because people adopt a one size fits all approach: The draft strategy that turns a perennial dog into a contender in just a couple years is "proven" best for everyone, even though few teams have a couple seasons worth of top five picks to grab the BPA. It's worked the other way in the past: The draft strategy that turns a 10-6 team into a two or three time champion is also "proven" best for all, even though the majority of teams in any given season don't have a 10-6 club on which to build.

Where it gets tricky is when a team significantly over/underperforms its overall ability. A good team with a few bad games and many injuries could find itself with a top pick and tempted to go BPA, even though it's probably still not the smart choice. It's really a priceless opportunity to fill one of their few holes with an elite long term player. The guys who get really screwed are the bad to mediocre teams who make the playoffs thanks to a few lucky wins: They STILL need the BPA, but drafting #20+ leaves them no chance to get him.

People like simple solutions, even—ESPECIALLY—to complex and/or changing problems. Take a single over-arching approach and stick with it to the bitter end, even if halfway through it's improved things so much, changed conditions so radically, that what was once obligatory is now self-destructive. That's why we have so many coaches that can turn awful teams into contenders but can't win playoff games with them, or can take contenders to championships but can't BUILD one with all the best draft picks in the world.

Life's complex and dynamic, and so is football; both are constantly changing and thus force constant adaptation. Therefore, any time I hear someone say, "we should ALWAYS do x," I'm pretty sure they're wrong—and it doesn't even matter what x is. Anyone who says we should ALWAYS draft for talent OR need is as wrong as anyone who says we should ALWAYS cut OR raise taxes.

Chef Zambini
04-25-2013, 10:21 PM
nice joel, nice.
to draft without consideration of NEED is assinine.
to pass on the best player available is short-sighted.
BPFOT is what any half intellegent Gm does.
\ BPA is what he says, need is what he must consider.

Poet
04-25-2013, 10:53 PM
Joel, I really don't feel like going through an entire point for point thing with you. I'll put it to you like this, most people agree with me. Most GM's agree with me. Most of the talking heads agree with me. I've even said that this happens within reason. History is on my side. I don't know what more you want from me.

Ravage!!!
04-25-2013, 11:03 PM
Elway just said that if Geno was available the Broncos would draft him. If Tavon Austin was available at 28 - he won't be - the Broncos would snap pick him. They don't need a LT, but you don't think Fisher or Luke J. would be picked by Denver if he was on the board? Really? Come on Zam, you're just being stubborn on this one.

Uhmm.. No. I don't. The Chiefs just showed this by trying to trade away their LT because they were drafting one in the first this year, and he's not even CLOSE to be being as good as Clady.

Why would a team use a pick for a guy that would be sitting on the sideline, unless you felt he could make the switch ot RT, and in that case, why wouldn't you trade down and take a guy that is made for RT and save the moneY?? I think you are pretty wrong on this King.

** I too, am not going ot read that book by joel.

Joel
04-25-2013, 11:47 PM
Joel, I really don't feel like going through an entire point for point thing with you. I'll put it to you like this, most people agree with me. Most GM's agree with me. Most of the talking heads agree with me. I've even said that this happens within reason. History is on my side. I don't know what more you want from me.
History varies; sometimes prioritizing need is fashionable, and sometimes ability. When all, or nearly all, teams do the same thing, the few successful ones only "prove" 12 teams MUST make the playoffs and one MUST win the SB. That doesn't vindicate the group-think strategy. Historically, someone always comes along to buck the trend sooner or later, has a few good years, and everyone else starts copying them because NFL teams have all the originality of a teen summer movie. The poles reverse and we say, "all the winning teams do this: That proves it's the best strategy."

Just like every time one SEC team beats more of the others than the rest it "proves" the SEC's the best conference. There's no point debating a strategys worth when the test is who's best at what everyone does.

Poet
04-25-2013, 11:55 PM
So let me get this straight, the elite GM's all do this. The bad GM's used to do the opposite. Now most of the perennially good teams do this.

But...I'm wrong?

What?

Obviously if a 3-4 team is looking at LB's they're going to have a different list of players than a 4-3 team, although some guys can do both. Or maybe an offense like Washington values certain types of players over an offense like Indy's. But by and large, I mean...Really??

REALLY?!?!!?

TXBRONC
04-26-2013, 08:46 AM
So let me get this straight, the elite GM's all do this. The bad GM's used to do the opposite. Now most of the perennially good teams do this.

But...I'm wrong?

What?

Obviously if a 3-4 team is looking at LB's they're going to have a different list of players than a 4-3 team, although some guys can do both. Or maybe an offense like Washington values certain types of players over an offense like Indy's. But by and large, I mean...Really??



REALLY?!?!!?


Btw Eifert and Gresham ought to make a pretty good pair of tight ends.

Chef Zambini
04-26-2013, 09:35 AM
did the broncos spend alot of time scouting offensive tackles?
no of course not.
the scouts time and energy is spent on addressing NEED, to suggest ba teams needs are overlooked in the selection process and teams just go ahead and take the next best player available, regardless of their position is ludicrous.

MOtorboat
04-26-2013, 09:37 AM
did the broncos spend alot of time scouting offensive tackles?
no of course not.
the scouts time and energy is spent on addressing NEED, to suggest ba teams needs are overlooked in the selection process and teams just go ahead and take the next best player available, regardless of their position is ludicrous.

A.) Prove that.

B.) So?

Joel
04-28-2013, 06:44 PM
So let me get this straight, the elite GM's all do this. The bad GM's used to do the opposite. Now most of the perennially good teams do this.

But...I'm wrong?

What?

Obviously if a 3-4 team is looking at LB's they're going to have a different list of players than a 4-3 team, although some guys can do both. Or maybe an offense like Washington values certain types of players over an offense like Indy's. But by and large, I mean...Really??

REALLY?!?!!?
You still don't have it straight: Most GMs do the same thing, one MUST win the SB, and that somehow "validates" what they ALL do. Just like the SEC playing each other till someone wins "proves" that's the best college conference. Historically, sometimes most teams drafted need, and others most teams drafted talent; either way, the one that got the title supposedly "proved" the currently popular strategy "always" best.

Yet someone always came along and won a few titles swimming against the stream, then everyone aped that and the cycle restarted. Doesn't matter if it's a dog team drafting talent to make a SB winner when everyone's drafting need, or a good team drafting need to make a SB winner when everyone's drafting talent: There is NO easy one-size-fits-all strategy for life, or football.

Joel
04-28-2013, 06:59 PM
Think of it this way: Instead of saying the SB winner "proves" drafting need or talent (whichever is the current fad) is ALWAYS right, why not say 31 LOSERS doing the SAME thing DISPROVES it?

The Allies won WWIIs European Theater using land based bombers and tanks against land based bombers and tanks, proving that the best military strategy. But wait, the Allies won WWIIs PACIFIC Theater using ship based fighters and transports, proving THAT the best military strategy. Or maybe—just possibly maybe—carriers and transports are best for fighting oceanic wars over thousands of miles, while airbases and tanks are best for fighting land wars over hundreds of miles. *ponders* Hmm, yeah; I bet if we'd tried to beat the Luftwaffe and Panzer brigades with the Royal Navy the world would be speaking German now. ;)

SR
04-28-2013, 07:33 PM
Goddamn Joel.

I think you would be happier laying on your back pissing up a rope than you would be being a supporter of the Broncos.

Poet
04-28-2013, 07:56 PM
Joel, just stop it. For the 100th time, I know NEED PLAYS INTO IT! I'm not advocating strict and blind BPA. You feel the need to make everything either semantics based or esoteric.

Most teams use BPA as the guidelines for drafting. They try to fill needs off of the BPA. Note what order that came in. The reasons the top teams stay atop the league is largely because BPA. Hey, we have a need at a safety and a moderate need for depth at OLB but we could use a TE, which is a minor 'need' or want. But the tight end grades out as a top ten player overall. The safety is a top fifty player and the OLB is a first round pick, but not nearly the player the TE is.

Damn, we'll take the top ten overall player. Shucks!

Ozzie Newsome takes BPA. He's also smart enough to run his team from a vantage point where everything is in the picture. If you'll note, all the top players the Ravens got were close to BPA. They also filled the needs. The reason why BPA is so great is because it adds depth to you. You can let a starter who is going to get overpaid in FA and largely not miss a beat.

Let me beat you in the head with this one last time. In the 90's the Bengals were historically tragic. They mostly drafted for need. They sucked. For the last five years or so, the Bengals scrapped that awful mentality and now have one of the best rosters in football. Largely because of them drafting the best player available. Manti Teo would have filled a huge need. Cyprien would have filled a huge need. Eifert was the last flat out elite guy on offense and we took him. At first I didn't get the pick sans the stock he was the BPA. Then as the strategy and it's LONG-REACHING effects entered my mind, I got it. So just stop. Ozzie Newsome disagrees with you. Bill Belichek disagrees with you. John Elway disagrees with you. Ted Thompson disagrees with you.

But you know who DOES agree with you? Jerry Jones.

TXBRONC
04-29-2013, 07:13 AM
Joel, just stop it. For the 100th time, I know NEED PLAYS INTO IT! I'm not advocating strict and blind BPA. You feel the need to make everything either semantics based or esoteric.

Most teams use BPA as the guidelines for drafting. They try to fill needs off of the BPA. Note what order that came in. The reasons the top teams stay atop the league is largely because BPA. Hey, we have a need at a safety and a moderate need for depth at OLB but we could use a TE, which is a minor 'need' or want. But the tight end grades out as a top ten player overall. The safety is a top fifty player and the OLB is a first round pick, but not nearly the player the TE is.

Damn, we'll take the top ten overall player. Shucks!

Ozzie Newsome takes BPA. He's also smart enough to run his team from a vantage point where everything is in the picture. If you'll note, all the top players the Ravens got were close to BPA. They also filled the needs. The reason why BPA is so great is because it adds depth to you. You can let a starter who is going to get overpaid in FA and largely not miss a beat.

Let me beat you in the head with this one last time. In the 90's the Bengals were historically tragic. They mostly drafted for need. They sucked. For the last five years or so, the Bengals scrapped that awful mentality and now have one of the best rosters in football. Largely because of them drafting the best player available. Manti Teo would have filled a huge need. Cyprien would have filled a huge need. Eifert was the last flat out elite guy on offense and we took him. At first I didn't get the pick sans the stock he was the BPA. Then as the strategy and it's LONG-REACHING effects entered my mind, I got it. So just stop. Ozzie Newsome disagrees with you. Bill Belichek disagrees with you. John Elway disagrees with you. Ted Thompson disagrees with you.

But you know who DOES agree with you? Jerry Jones.

Some people may never get it King.

Joel
05-01-2013, 10:04 PM
Goddamn Joel.

I think you would be happier laying on your back pissing up a rope than you would be being a supporter of the Broncos.
I'd be happy if we'd won >2 playoff games since Elway retired, and don't see why so many are content, in some cases apparently PROUD, we haven't.

I noted which came first, King, and that's the problem: Neither one should ALWAYS come first. If a team wants to replace an aging/expensive player about to be a FA/cut/retire they should draft the best guy who plays THAT position, not just the best guy still there when they pick. For playoff teams, that Best Player LEFT unlikely to be that great anyway; their first rounder is just a couple steps from a second rounder, and so on all the way down the line. Meanwhile, pointing to the Indy 500 winner as proof cars are faster than rockets proves nothing; a guy in a car beat a bunch of other guys in cars, but ONE of them had to win.

Just so we're clear, I'm NOT saying teams should NEVER prioritize talent over need: Awful teams should do EXACTLY that. Them ignoring a rare shot at elite talent to take a lesser player who fills just ONE of countless needs is as wasteful as a great team ignoring a glaring need to draft a punter because he's the best #30 guy left. That's neither semantic nor esoteric, but broad and direct: It's just not simple.

C'est la geurre.

MOtorboat
05-01-2013, 10:11 PM
I'd be happy if we'd won >2 playoff games since Elway retired, and don't see why so many are content, in some cases apparently PROUD, we haven't.

**** that.

I won't be told that because I'm satisfied that we have a legitimate contending team that I'm proud we didn't win last year. The two feelings aren't mutually exclusive.

We didn't have a contending team since 2005, no matter what idiotic notion you have. Now Denver does.

broncohead
05-01-2013, 10:15 PM
**** that.

I won't be told that because I'm satisfied that we have a legitimate contending team that I'm proud we didn't win last year. The two feelings aren't mutually exclusive.

We didn't have a contending team since 2005, no matter what idiotic notion you have. Now Denver does.

And we wouldn't without Manning

Joel
05-01-2013, 11:11 PM
Contenders win playoff games. Next January can't come soon enough; I hope Denver's still around when it gets here. If we're not, I hope I won't have to hear more about how BPA should "always" be top priority. But if that happens, I likely will, because the ONLY intelligent strategy is "always" sound. The Program is rock solid! We just didn't execute it. The famous last words of every losing coach and general in history.

broncohead
05-01-2013, 11:15 PM
If a team makes the playoffs they are contenders imo. Some teams are labeled contenders early in the season because they are expected to be in the playoffs. We just made a few mistakes in key situations that really hurt us (no need to get into it we all know what they are). We have only gotten better from last season

Joel
05-01-2013, 11:20 PM
In that case we were contenders before Manning got here; we just made too many mistakes. Like I said, famous last words.

Poet
05-02-2013, 02:37 PM
So heading into the playoffs, no one was a contender because they hadn't beaten anyone yet? So after the first week of play, the Texans were more of a SB contender than the Broncos, because they had beaten my Bengals?

Poet
05-02-2013, 02:53 PM
Contenders win playoff games. Next January can't come soon enough; I hope Denver's still around when it gets here. If we're not, I hope I won't have to hear more about how BPA should "always" be top priority. But if that happens, I likely will, because the ONLY intelligent strategy is "always" sound. The Program is rock solid! We just didn't execute it. The famous last words of every losing coach and general in history.

In order for you to prove a point, you have to go to extremes and form a very obtuse argument. You realize that, right?

Chef Zambini
05-02-2013, 02:59 PM
I'd be happy if we'd won >2 playoff games since Elway retired, and don't see why so many are content, in some cases apparently PROUD, we haven't.

I noted which came first, King, and that's the problem: Neither one should ALWAYS come first. If a team wants to replace an aging/expensive player about to be a FA/cut/retire they should draft the best guy who plays THAT position, not just the best guy still there when they pick. For playoff teams, that Best Player LEFT unlikely to be that great anyway; their first rounder is just a couple steps from a second rounder, and so on all the way down the line. Meanwhile, pointing to the Indy 500 winner as proof cars are faster than rockets proves nothing; a guy in a car beat a bunch of other guys in cars, but ONE of them had to win.

Just so we're clear, I'm NOT saying teams should NEVER prioritize talent over need: Awful teams should do EXACTLY that. Them ignoring a rare shot at elite talent to take a lesser player who fills just ONE of countless needs is as wasteful as a great team ignoring a glaring need to draft a punter because he's the best #30 guy left. That's neither semantic nor esoteric, but broad and direct: It's just not simple.

C'est la geurre.
well said, except the last, it really is far from war.

Simple Jaded
05-02-2013, 03:26 PM
If I have Clinton Poorti$ when Adrian Peterson is available I'm taking him, if I have Al Wilson when Patrick Willis is available I'm taking him, if I have Dumervil when Von Miller is available I'm taking him, if I have Brandon Marshall when Aj Green is available I'm taking him.......even if I have Champ Bailey when Dee Milliner is available I'm taking him.

Ya don't have to have a need to draft the best player available, nor do you have to ignore needs at the expense of BPA. Sometimes the need pick has a comparable grade to the BPA. Most times, I would guess, a draft is a mixture of all methods.

Joel
05-03-2013, 04:07 AM
So heading into the playoffs, no one was a contender because they hadn't beaten anyone yet? So after the first week of play, the Texans were more of a SB contender than the Broncos, because they had beaten my Bengals?
Depends what you mean by "contender," I suppose, but we can't have it both ways: Either we were contenders before Manning (because we won our division, made the playoffs and won a game there) or, if not, we weren't one last year either (because we did all the same things EXCEPT win a playoff game.) Postseason results are all that matter; ask the 15-1 '98 Vikings. Between 1980-1990 my Oilers made the playoffs 5 times to your Bengals' 4: Which team was more successful? Given ya'll played two SBs and we never made it past the divisional round, I'll say ya'll were; don't like it, but it's true.


In order for you to prove a point, you have to go to extremes and form a very obtuse argument. You realize that, right?
My argument's not obtuse at all; I get what you're saying, and acknowledge I do: I just disagree. We don't have to go to extremes either, and aren't: We're talking about whether to PRIORITIZE need/talent while agreeing BOTH must be a factor. It's just which comes first, and the answer isn't "always" anything. It depends on the team, and the draft, for that matter. I think Denver's needed a MLB like nobody's business for EIGHT YEARS, but the overwhelming consensus is all this years MLBs suck huge hairy donkeys, so a pick there is probably wasted (though Mayocks scouting report on Arthur Brown does make me wonder.)


well said, except the last, it really is far from war.
I've read football's the closest thing to war without killing someone, and tend to agree (in Oakland, Pitt and Philly the distinction seems lost entirely.) Few other sports change so deeply and often, place such a premium on field positon, strategy and tactics (not to mention outguessing and adapting the last two.) Gaining ground, holding position, winning in the trenches, flanking opponents with blitzes and bombing them through the air have pretty much just two natural enviroments: The football field and the battlefield. Hopefully the NFL soon learns the lesson of Vietnam and stops treating saturation bombing as a panacea.

I'm not trivializing war; football's a game and war's life and death, not just for soldiers but for the civilians they defend. Do an online search for "wedge formation" though and guess what will be the only two results.

Speaking of aerial vs. ground assults though, check this out: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1940/ http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/

Average net yds/passing attempt is virtually UNCHANGED from 1940—but NFL RUSHING average has gone up just over a yard! What's more, the Bears AND Redkins both had more net yds/pass attempt than last years top team (us), while the team with last years top rushing average (Minnesota) gained 1.7 yds more per carry than the top 1940 team (Chicago again; 1940 was the year they introduced the T and dominated everyone, setting the current NFL scoring record when they beat Washington 73-0 in the championship.)

Current difference between passing and running? 1.9 yds/attempt. Can anyone explain to me why that's worth nearly TRIPLING the risk of a turnover? And don't say "because it doubles the chance of a TD," because that's not enough (nor actually true; 2012 passing TD% was 4.3, while the rushing TD% was ~3%.) Passing not only causes all the Ints, IT CAUSES MOST OF THE FUMBLES, TOO! All for 1.9 yds more and 1.3% more chance of a TD. And I thought the DRAFT was a poor resource investment.... :tongue:


If I have Clinton Poorti$ when Adrian Peterson is available I'm taking him, if I have Al Wilson when Patrick Willis is available I'm taking him, if I have Dumervil when Von Miller is available I'm taking him, if I have Brandon Marshall when Aj Green is available I'm taking him.......even if I have Champ Bailey when Dee Milliner is available I'm taking him.
If you have those guys when they're not pushing 30 and draft the others anyway, that's a grave mistake, IMHO, unless you're SOLID everywhere else. Not because they suck, obviously, but because there will inevitably be OTHER places you DON'T have Pro Bowlers and could therefore sorely use one.


Ya don't have to have a need to draft the best player available, nor do you have to ignore needs at the expense of BPA. Sometimes the need pick has a comparable grade to the BPA. Most times, I would guess, a draft is a mixture of all methods.
Well, if the BPA fills an undeniable need that's a no brainer. But drafting a star where you've GOT a star just tells 31 other teams someone's about to be desperate to unload a very good but very expensive player they can't get on the field. Meanwhile, your front seven's more holes than cheese, or your RT's a turnstile, or your QB's color blind or... this is the age of FA and there's 32 teams: EVERYONE has holes SOMEWHERE.

Good teams have less than most, but they also have crappy picks; they're not getting the BPA, they're getting the BPL, so they better get one they can use or trade up for top talent. Bad teams have so many holes asking "can I use the BPA?" is a rhetorical (and stupid) question, and they've got the draft position for the franchise player they desperately need EVERYWHERE.

Teams don't have to have a need to draft the BPA, no, but if they do it on that basis they're practically handing an opponent a good player cheap. The unlikelihood of an awful team having many such players is another way to illustrate why they should draft BPA (same argument, just from the other direction.)

They don't have to skip the BPA to fill a need either, but if he's TRULY the BPA they almost can't skip a need, because their top draft pick is probably a direct result of having nothing BUT needs. Good teams also doesn't have to skip the BPL to fill a need, but since the BPL probably isn't much better than the best at one of their needs, they should. The best player ISN'T available unless they trade up, so they should take one they can use to win a title, not the best-not-best player when he's not even as good as their current starter.

I agree it's almost always a mix of the two, but also think it's rarely an even balance. Again, it depends as much on what's out there as what's in here; taking the BPA even when a team has a top pick clearly pays smaller dividends in a very weak draft, while a very strong draft allows teams to be more selective about the position where they most want a HoFer.

That's actually another argument for weak teams to go BPA; as important as QBs are, and as badly as the Chiefs need one, going BPA and hoping to get a QB later was probably smart this year. Suppose they were coming of an AFCCG appearance though? Does a weak QB class mean they still spend the best #31 pick even though they're solid everywhere except the starting QB who turned the ball over 5 times and cost them a SB trip? Yea, now they have a future HoFer playing behind Tamba Hali: Will that get them over the hump? Maybe they can trade Hali for a top QB when everyone knows they have to unload his salary?

TXBRONC
05-03-2013, 09:07 AM
If you have those guys when they're not pushing 30 and draft the others anyway, that's a grave mistake, IMHO, unless you're SOLID everywhere else. Not because they suck, obviously, but because there will inevitably be OTHER places you DON'T have Pro Bowlers and could therefore sorely use one.

By your logic Denver should have taken Marcel Dareus instead of Von Miller because the obvious need was defensive tackle. Thankfully you're not running the team. Why don't back to the U.S. and go to work for some NFL franchise as G.M. or a talent scout since you know so much about football.

King is right your argument is obtuse.

Ravage!!!
05-03-2013, 10:23 AM
Contenders win playoff games. Next January can't come soon enough; I hope Denver's still around when it gets here. If we're not, I hope I won't have to hear more about how BPA should "always" be top priority. But if that happens, I likely will, because the ONLY intelligent strategy is "always" sound. The Program is rock solid! We just didn't execute it. The famous last words of every losing coach and general in history.

Joel... good teams don't draft for THIS year... they draft for the future. If you think this team, should or would, draft solely for this season... and if you think that THIS year is the result of THIS year's draft..... then you are so very very... very.... wrong.

Joel
05-04-2013, 05:57 AM
By your logic Denver should have taken Marcel Dareus instead of Von Miller because the obvious need was defensive tackle. Thankfully you're not running the team. Why don't back to the U.S. and go to work for some NFL franchise as G.M. or a talent scout since you know so much about football.

King is right your argument is obtuse.
No, by my logic 4-12 teams draft the Best Player Available—WHEREVER he plays. They have few (or no) franchise players, so they need one desperately, and have the rare opportunity to get one: Pull the trigger.

In 2011 we had the #2 pick and our choice of anyone but Newton. Pretty much ANY HoF candidate we picked would've been a huge upgrade over anyone but: Champ, DJ, Dawkins, Doom or Clady.

That's it: Five of 22 starters couldn't use big improvement. Three of THEM aren't even on the team anymore, while another turns 35 next month. In that situation, HELL, yes spend the #2 overall pick on the BPA, because he makes the team a lot better WHEREVER he plays. Sure, we could've used Dareus, but Miller was better, MUCH better than Haggan, who started one game for us that year and two for the Rams last year.

On the other hand, contenders have neither top picks nor tons of holes. At the risk of confirmation bias, look at the Pats: They've been trading back for a decade—yet kept hosting conference championships the whole time! They're not stockpiling the best player2 "available" at #100+: They're patching holes. Seemingly every year NE loses a bunch of Pro Bowlers to free agency, but replaces them without missing a beat, while everyone scratches their heads wondering how. It's because they use all those extra late picks to fill holes instead of scraping the chum bucket for HoFers who are long gone.

Joel
05-04-2013, 06:07 AM
Joel... good teams don't draft for THIS year... they draft for the future. If you think this team, should or would, draft solely for this season... and if you think that THIS year is the result of THIS year's draft..... then you are so very very... very.... wrong.
When good teams draft a roleplayer to replace a Pro Bowler who's >30 and in the last year of a contract running $5 million/year they ARE drafting for the future, especially now that rookie contracts can run 5 years.

However, contender's have to look as much at how to get their talented team to this years Super Bowl as how to get there in five years. Their draft is, or should be, a maintenance program, not a total rebuild. They don't need a total rebuild, and don't have the high picks to do one, not unless they trade up, and trading up to replace a 25 year old Pro Bowler means ignoring one of the few holes that could cost a playoff game.

Look, this isn't "my" crazy unique idea; anyone who wants to debate it is directed to Bob Carroll, Pete Palmer and John Thorn. I didn't just pull out of my rear, and they certainly didn't.

Simple Jaded
05-04-2013, 10:46 AM
I wasn't qualifying those examples with age. If I have a chance at a top CB the year after Bailey has 10 Int's I would not hesitate to take him, that doesn't mean I wouldn't take a different position either. Point is, said Top CB is not off my board because I have Bailey in his prime.

Nobody wants to look back and say they passed on Darrelle Revis because they needed Jarvis Moss.

Joel
05-04-2013, 11:27 AM
I wasn't qualifying those examples with age. If I have a chance at a top CB the year after Bailey has 10 Int's I would not hesitate to take him, that doesn't mean I wouldn't take a different position either. Point is, said Top CB is not off my board because I have Bailey in his prime.

Nobody wants to look back and say they passed on Darrelle Revis because they needed Jarvis Moss.
Does anyone need Jarvis Moss? :tongue: If I already had a Champ at BOTH starting CB spots, no, I wouldn't draft a third one just because he was a guaranteed HoFer, especially since no first round pick is a "guaranteed" anything; just ask Ryan Leaf—or Jarvis Moss. ;) Even had he not been a bust I'd have taken Revis in 2007 unless there were a better talent somewhere I needed, simply because Dre Bly was a disaster and I liked Doom and Ekuban as our starting DEs. However, Adrian Peterson and Bly>Revis and Tater, because our hole at RB was bigger than the one at RCB.

Which brings us to the deeper point: Revis, Peterson and Megatron would've all been better than Moss, but were all gone well before our pick; that's why the Jets traded up to get Revis. The Best Player Available WASN'T available at our 17th pick (and we also had to trade up just to get there.) The best players LEFT were much better than washout Moss; hindsight makes things easier, eh? ;) I'd have rather taken Michael Griffin than Moss so we were ready when Lynch left, and if we'd spent our natural first rounder on Jon Beason we could've filled a longstanding hole that's STILL there four years later.

When our pick came I think most people would've said Brady Quinn was the BPA, so Moss didn't cost much compared to what we "should've" had, only what we COULD'VE had.

WARHORSE
05-04-2013, 12:10 PM
We talkin bout 'need'?


How is it this thread is in this forum?


We talkin bout 'need'.


Not a draft pick. Not a player. Not the Broncos.


We takin bout 'need'.

We talkin bout 'need'.


Someone get a soundbyte.