Best Player Available

[kenai]

You might work a little on your reading comprehension before you reply to posts. My comment was Davis had no impact on how we were going to pick.

Well, fair enough. It wasn't at all clear to me that is what you meant. But I understand now. Tell you what: I'll work on my reading comprehension, you work on your writing clarity, and we'll meet in the middle.

 

[blindzebra]

Picking the extreme example (7 RBs) is sort of ridiculous. For years in the 70's the Boy's got to the superbowl by choosing the BPA. If he worked out, great, if not, then oh well. But, if he did work out, they traded the other player for future picks and rolled seamlessly on. There weren't gaps while they were waiting for the next good player just because their "need" draft pick flopped.

Take an example that involved trades: SF had Montana. Why get another good QB when you have Montana? Well, they traded for Steve Young, groomed him behind Montana and then eventually traded Montana. A good young player can force a good old player out but while he still has trade value.

So, if we skip the BPA and draft to simply for need we're short-sighted. If we had a chance to draft Vernon Davis at TE we should grab it. If he works out then you have a new 2TE/2WR offense that is strong in run blocking and still spreads the field. Still not satisfied? Well, then trade one of them.

Who here is going to say that Buffalo shouldn't have drafted McGahee because they had Henry? Well, McGahee worked out and they traded Henry and everyone in Buffalo seems pretty happy with it.

The point is that when you have a chance to acquire a potentially great player at a reasonable price then do it. It isn't worth picking strictly for need (Quincy C) when a player like Sean Rogers is sitting there.

Now, later in the draft things even out. You aren't going to find that sure fine difference maker (at least you don't know that you will). If he were there, you would have drafted him earlier. So, sure, you pick more for need because the difference between players is slighter.

The Cowboys of the 70's did not have a cap to worry about. There were fewer teams and you had a much better chance of finding a starter with any pick. That is hardly the case today.

Every team ranks their board based on their perceived value of each player. That ranking is influenced by team needs. Further when their pick comes up in the early rounds...1 and 2 mainly...they will usually have groups of players with similar grades, it is rare for a player to be there that is head and shoulders better than other players in that group.

There are not that many trades to make your position likely, after the fact. Teams are not drafting players and trading players at that position regularly. In fact teams that do are usually unloading a problem player or making a move with the cap in mind.

Also if BPA were the norm, how do you explain those players who were slotted high and than fall? Teams are not willing to gamble on why other teams passed on that player and they usually slide to a team with a need for that position.

There is a huge difference between REACHING to fill a need and not getting value, and drafting for need. Look no further than last year when Dallas had one of the most need based drafts I've ever seen.

 

[theogt]

Actually, I don't think the signing of Davis has any inpact on our draft on day one at all.

I disagree (and I've discussed this at length with abersonc before). Without Davis we would be looking for an immediate starter in the draft, assuming we couldn't find one in FA. If we're looking for an immediate starter, I assure you that we would be drafting one in the first day. If we're not looking for a starter we're given a little more flexibility with our draft picks. Davis's signing may not have any affect on our #1 pick, but it certainly has an affect on our day one picks.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Picking the extreme example (7 RBs) is sort of ridiculous. For years in the 70's the Boy's got to the superbowl by choosing the BPA. If he worked out, great, if not, then oh well. But, if he did work out, they traded the other player for future picks and rolled seamlessly on. There weren't gaps while they were waiting for the next good player just because their "need" draft pick flopped.

a good example of this ethic was the Cowboys making RBs calvin hill and duane thomas their #1 selections in consecutive years ('69 & '70). the immediate result being each player was named Offensive Rookie of the Year.

Gil Brandt gave the Cowboys an edge in scouting that they will prolly never enjoy again. the guy was way ahead of his time.

 

[dbair1967]

Gil Brandt gave the Cowboys an edge in scouting that they will prolly never enjoy again. the guy was way ahead of his time.

he was once the draft master and deserves all the credit in the world for his work in the 60's and 70's, but once the late 70's hit something happened to him and he became a liability on draft day...his drafts from 1978-the end were pretty poor other than a pick or two here and there

David

 

[THUMPER]

The Cowboys of the 70's did not have a cap to worry about. There were fewer teams and you had a much better chance of finding a starter with any pick. That is hardly the case today.

Every team ranks their board based on their perceived value of each player. That ranking is influenced by team needs. Further when their pick comes up in the early rounds...1 and 2 mainly...they will usually have groups of players with similar grades, it is rare for a player to be there that is head and shoulders better than other players in that group.

There are not that many trades to make your position likely, after the fact. Teams are not drafting players and trading players at that position regularly. In fact teams that do are usually unloading a problem player or making a move with the cap in mind.

Also if BPA were the norm, how do you explain those players who were slotted high and than fall? Teams are not willing to gamble on why other teams passed on that player and they usually slide to a team with a need for that position.

There is a huge difference between REACHING to fill a need and not getting value, and drafting for need. Look no further than last year when Dallas had one of the most need based drafts I've ever seen.

The voice of reason, thanks for finally showing up.

No team goes strictly by need or by best player, they rank the players according to how well they would fit with THEIR team and THEIR needs and draft accordingly. The abberation occurs when you have an owner or GM who locks onto a single player and reaches for him (Jerry).

My draft axiom for the first round is: Don't reach, don't select project players. Select guys that can start.

After the first round you can start to look at guys who dropped, guys with injury concerns, weight concerns, legal problems, etc. but not in the first round. You have to take solid players in the first round.

 

[SuspectCorner]

he was once the draft master and deserves all the credit in the world for his work in the 60's and 70's, but once the late 70's hit something happened to him and he became a liability on draft day...his drafts from 1978-the end were pretty poor other than a pick or two here and there

David

or did the rest of the league just catch up to the point we were no longer grabbing all the easter eggs round-after-round?

 

[dbair1967]

or did the rest of the league just catch up to the point we were no longer grabbing all the easter eggs round-after-round?

it might have been some of that, but it was also Brandt always trying to find "the diamond in the rough" (guys like Rod Hill) instead of going with what his eyes should have been telling him...as much as people want to bash Jones after Jimmy left, Brandt's drafting from 1978 until he left was just as bad, if not worse

David

 

[MichaelWinicki]

it might have been some of that, but it was also Brandt always trying to find "the diamond in the rough" (guys like Rod Hill) instead of going with what his eyes should have been telling him...as much as people want to bash Jones after Jimmy left, Brandt's drafting from 1978 until he left was just as bad, if not worse

David

Billy Cannon Jr. (shudder...)

 

[AbeBeta]

Well, fair enough. It wasn't at all clear to me that is what you meant. But I understand now. Tell you what: I'll work on my reading comprehension, you work on your writing clarity, and we'll meet in the middle.

If you don't find what I wrote clear (see below) then you might need some help with your reading -- really I say this to educate -- you might seriously have a reading problem. What words are you having trouble with "dictate"? "impact"? I'd be happy to define those for you.

"for the last time. a team that lets Keith Davis dictate their draft has their heads up their butts. here or not, Davis shouldn't impact any of our picks"

 

[CrazyCowboy]

The thing I like most about the Davis signing is that it allows us to draft the Best Player Available. And that will be a change! Seems like Jerry always falls in love with a player at a key position of need...and sometimes, we reach (Quincy Carter, Tony Dixon...etc.). So, wouldn't it be refreshing if we just drafted the very best player--at any position?

And please don't give me a lecture about a FS to compete with Davis. That is obvious. But there are still some FA FSs available (Coleman) and there will be FSs cut after the draft and in the preseason.

Best Player Available! Any position! Go get him!

I agree 100 percent with your Quincy/Dixon reaches....what a waste! :bang2:

 

[kenai]

If you don't find what I wrote clear (see below) then you might need some help with your reading -- really I say this to educate -- you might seriously have a reading problem. What words are you having trouble with "dictate"? "impact"? I'd be happy to define those for you.

"for the last time. a team that lets Keith Davis dictate their draft has their heads up their butts. here or not, Davis shouldn't impact any of our picks"

In the context of what I wrote (the first post) your statement seemed to support the idea that we should be forced to fill the FS spot with a 1st round draft choice. That kind of drafting often leads to mistakes. In the context of what I wrote, this is what your statement seemed to imply.

Now, about your rather silly insults about my "education," well, that is a little funny coming from someone who didn't put together complete sentences ("for the last time."), doesn't use caps at the beginning of sentences and mixes singular (team) with plural (heads, butts).

Now, I didn't fully understand what you were implying, I admit that. But it was in large part due to the fact that you wrote quickly and emotionally without clarity. Own your part of the mess!

 

[SuspectCorner]

it might have been some of that, but it was also Brandt always trying to find "the diamond in the rough" (guys like Rod Hill) instead of going with what his eyes should have been telling him...as much as people want to bash Jones after Jimmy left, Brandt's drafting from 1978 until he left was just as bad, if not worse

David

ego eclipses actual talent. now there's an old story. i hafta agree. the record speaks for itself.

somewhere along the way - the master lost his midas touch.