2013 needs

[HardRightEdge]

That was actually my reaction to the thought of miller and Matthews rushing the passer.

OK, sorry dude. The point being, had that been the case, it would have been "Perry who?"

On an unrelated matter, I used him as an example because I think he's the best D player in the game, nearly since the time he first stepped on the field. He may be the most efficient D player I've ever seen, starting with the Senior Bowl...no wasted motion...instincts and football intelligence are off the charts.

Also unrelated, lest I offend anybody, I'm a great fan of Matthews, and as highly regarded as he is, I think he's underrated as all around player...we miss him in the run game, and he's terrific in coverage. So there.

 

[ivo610]

OK, sorry dude. The point being, had that been the case, it would have been "Perry who?"

On an unrelated matter, I used him as an example because I think he's the best D player in the game, nearly since the time he first stepped on the field. He may be the most efficient D player I've ever seen, starting with the Senior Bowl...no wasted motion...instincts and football intelligence are off the charts.

Also unrelated, lest I offend anybody, I'm a great fan of Matthews, and as highly regarded as he is, I think he's underrated as all around player...we miss him in the run game, and he's terrific in coverage. So there.

As a JJ watt fan I would disagree but they are neck n neck.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As a JJ watt fan I would disagree but they are neck n neck.

If I had a vote for DPOY, I'd probably split it between the two. Besides the sacks, Watt is up to 15 passes defended...that is outrageous for a D-Lineman...I dunno what the record is, but he must be getting close. If I'm a QB, I don't throw checkdowns to his side.

I said what I said about Miller because his game is so pure; no denying Watt is a playmaking beast.

 

[AmishMafia]

It most certainly does. But you expect the words...in this case "best player available"...to suggest what is meant.

You don't call an "apple" a "banana" just 'cuz the one in your hand happens to be yellow.

Once need is introduced into the equation it doesn't make sense, or at least it begs the question, "best for what?" Best for me, best for my needs or best regardless of who I am or what I need?

I don't think what you presented is what TT does, or what anybody does, which goes to the point of why "best player available" is a bad term...it is misleading. Then again, I would argue TT means to be misleading, or at least non-disclosing.

8.0 players are not jumped on over 7.0 players in a vacuum, independent of other factors. A team averaging 6.5 players is preferred if the talent is balanced across positions than a 7.5 team loaded at a few positions and bankrupt at others. The addage, "you're only as strong as your weakest link" is overused and often exaggerated, but it goes to the point.

The tiered approach to grading and draft board construction, talked about in several posts above, makes too much sense, certainly more sense that BPA, to not be seriously considered.

The key to draft success over the long term is getting x.x players at positions in the draft that have an x.x - 0.5 grade, while picking up a quality QB and some playmakers along the way.

So, the Best Player Available doesn't mean the best player that is available? A player who is better than other players.

You believe in tiers as 'makes too much sense' but if you select in a tier, if the player is at a need position, he no longer is as good as another player in the same tier.

Personally, I think you are yanking my chain at this point.

You seem to think that BPA and Need are mutually exclusive. Of course that is silly, it's the same player whether you need him or not.

Bob: Hey, Ed, I bought a car!
Ed: Hey Bob, congrats!
Bob: Its red.
Ed: So, you didn't buy a car? You bought something red? I thought you were going to buy a car?
Bob: I bought a car, it happens to be red.
Ed: Nope, you didn't buy a car, you bought something that is red. How can it be a car if its red?

As far as weak link theory, it is partly true, I feel. But the playmaker theory also has its merits and is a bigger issue. Rodgers makes people around him better. Our OLine sucks but teams don't blitz as much as they should because Rodgers will capitalize on less coverage. So I prefer a team with some 6s, mostly 7s and some 8s and a couple of 10s.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So, the Best Player Available doesn't mean the best player that is available? A player who is better than other players.

You believe in tiers as 'makes too much sense' but if you select in a tier, if the player is at a need position, he no longer is as good as another player in the same tier.

Personally, I think you are yanking my chain at this point.

If you equate "best player available" to TT's practices, then I'd qualify your first statement by saying "best player available" doesn't necessarily mean best player available. He might be, he might not.

Check out the Jersey Al link in Reply 55 in this thread. Maybe somebody else's words making the same points might resonate.

Let's say TT is picking at #30 in the next draft, his tier 2 covers #11 - #25 value guys, and the only player left on the board from tier 1 and tier 2 happens to be a tier 2 QB. TT would skip over the QB and look to his tier 3 list or try to trade down. In that case, he is not taking the best available player because he has no need for a first round QB who will sit on the bench for 4 years getting paid first round money, and then going FA. That's an obvious example, but there are certainly similar situations with a little more nuance that are bound to arise.

Most GMs will look at it this way, with one variation or another. What separates them is (1) accurately assessing their needs, (2) valuing players, (3) the willingness and agility to trade and (4) time horizon. Points (1) and (2) are closely linked. If a GM is a poor talent evaluator he also may not accurately evaluate his needs.

Point (4) is where teams most frequently screw up. For example, Holmgren had a one year time horizon to keep his job, so Weeden was the best available player giving him a chance to keep from getting fired. It didn't work, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As far as weak link theory, it is partly true, I feel. But the playmaker theory also has its merits and is a bigger issue. Rodgers makes people around him better. Our OLine sucks but teams don't blitz as much as they should because Rodgers will capitalize on less coverage. So I prefer a team with some 6s, mostly 7s and some 8s and a couple of 10s.

A weak link won't kill you provided he's not the QB. However, if the guys standing on either side of him are not able enough to pick up some slack, it can be big trouble. Every team has weak links, especially by this time of the year with the injuries accumulating. But this is a team game...team success involves compensating for weaknesses.

 

[rodell330]

Von Miller is the best OLB in football. I love clay Matthews, and i'd probably rank him right behind Von Miller or Demarcus Ware as far as pure pass rusher but i'm not going to be a homer on this one. Dude is a natural pass rusher and the Broncos are getting exactly what they drafted him for. It would be love to find another olb to compliment Matthews on the other side instead of playing music olb's.