First draft selection - BPA or Fill a need

[DFWJC]

Always a combination of both, imo.

Obviously if you have two players ranked--say 24th and 28th on your board, but you have a great need for the 28th ranked player and almost no need for the 24th, then the no brainer is to take the 28th ranked player every time. The larger the rankings spread between the two, the harder is will be to go with need only before BPA.

The Cowboys have enough needs that they should have no trouble taking the BPA (or very close) while still filling a key need.

 

[Clove]

Offensive linemen. We have to eliminate all excuses for our offense next year.

 

[SLATEmosphere]

And I would hate to reach for a safety just for the sake of saying we got one. If one of the top S is at our pick great however if I have a DL who I have ranked higher then I go with the higher ranked player who is still filling a need and is looked at by my scouts as a more likely candidate to make it in the NFL. We don't need to go back to the Goodrich and Larrimore days of drafting. I need a DB lets grab this guy, it does not work.

WHat I'm saying is that you can bet the Cowboys have ALOT of S rated high on thier boards because they are BOTH talented and a need.

If you have Wells rated 4 but Delmas is rated 6...your going to pick a RB to play under Barber,Felix and Choice over a guy rated two spots less AND a pressing need?

It's literally never BPA because Wells is a better player, so you have to look at both.

 

[Doomsday101]

WHat I'm saying is that you can bet the Cowboys have ALOT of S rated high on thier boards because they are BOTH talented and a need.

If you have Wells rated 4 but Delmas is rated 6...your going to pick a RB to play under Barber,Felix and Choice over a guy rated two spots less AND a pressing need?

It's literally never BPA because Wells is a better player, so you have to look at both.

All I'm saying is if you rate a player high then rate him high based off his skill level not the position he plays. I'm not opposed to getting a safety at all but if I have a player ranked much higher than any safety on our board and he fills a need area then I take the player that I rank higher as a football player. I also stated before both BPA that fills a need

 

[TellerMorrow34]

BPA always. All you have to do is go back around the 96-2001 era of drafting here to see how drafting soley on need can hurt you because you reach for people who just aren't worth where you're drafting them.

BPA always.

 

[JBS]

who are some corners that we should consider at 51, if indeed we do move scandrick to FS

 

[Doomsday101]

BPA always. All you have to do is go back around the 96-2001 era of drafting here to see how drafting soley on need can hurt you because you reach for people who just aren't worth where you're drafting them.

BPA always.

Thing is if a team is loaded at RB as we are Dallas will not be looking for a RB. BPA is critical but so is filling needs. As many have said we have enough areas where we should be able to draft the BPA and fill one of our needs.

 

[DFWJC]

BPA always. All you have to do is go back around the 96-2001 era of drafting here to see how drafting soley on need can hurt you because you reach for people who just aren't worth where you're drafting them.

BPA always.

Agree, never draft soley on need. But BPA only is almost always out of the question too unless you have needs at every position (or no needs at any position).
So if you have an ILB, OL, or SS ranked 50th on your board and a RB ranked 48th, you're telling me you would take the RB?

But yes, when the gap widens--say the RB was ranked 5th on your board and the SS ranked 35th--then go ahead and take BPA becasue the value is overwhelming.

I see what you're saying though...don't ever stretch a lot to just fill a need like we did back in the early 2000s. That was REALLY stretching though.

 

[Dalmations202]

BPA on the board.

FA for needs (you know what you are getting because you have film on them) -- BPA for draft.

This is the most advantegeous for the team in the long run.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Most people subscribe to the theory that the best move is to always draft the BPA. Maybe in some circumstances, but not all. What if our draft board shows the BPA when it comes time for us to make our pick is a RB. Do you draft an RB just because he's considered the BPA???? Hell no. We don't need a RB. It would be a wasted pick. Same thing for a TE. We should draft the BPA that is available for several positions that we need, but not one that won't see the field. We need an ILB, DE and/or Nose, safety(s), WR (maybe), and OL. Those are the only positions we should consider with our first 2-3 picks. We have to address these positions.

 

[Doomsday101]

Agree, never draft soley on need. But BPA only is almost always out of the question too unless you have needs at every position (or no needs at any position).
So if you have an ILB, OL, or SS ranked 50th on your board and a RB ranked 48th, you're telling me you would take the RB?

But yes, when the gap widens--say the RB was ranked 5th on your board and the SS ranked 35th--then go ahead and take BPA becasue the value is overwhelming.

I see what you're saying though...don't ever stretch a lot to just fill a need like we did back in the early 2000s. That was REALLY stretching though.

I agree with that.

 

[SLATEmosphere]

who are some corners that we should consider at 51, if indeed we do move scandrick to FS

No one at 51 to be quite honest with you. The CB crop is crap this year. The only guys I like are Kevin Barnes and Macho Harris and those would be reaches at 51 IMO.

 

[DFWJC]

BPA on the board.

FA for needs (you know what you are getting because you have film on them) -- BPA for draft.

This is the most advantegeous for the team in the long run.

If you are referring to the team's specific board that already ranks the teams wishes according to need...yes, I agree.

If it is a general draft board based on best player regardless of positon, then no...no team does that. But I'm pretty sure you mean the team's board--which already biases based on team needs.

Again, no way if you have an overall board with all players regardless of positon ranked that you would take a RB *assume no need for RB) ranked 10th ahead of a ILB ranked 11th. It would be moronic. But again, I'm sure you did not mean that.

 

[Doomsday101]

BPA on the board.

FA for needs (you know what you are getting because you have film on them) -- BPA for draft.

This is the most advantegeous for the team in the long run.

FA is also where team end up over paying for players. Dallas is not in a great position of filling our needs in FA we don't have that type of cash to get quality players and even avg players these days tend to get big paydays in FA

 

[JBS]

No one at 51 to be quite honest with you. The CB crop is crap this year. The only guys I like are Kevin Barnes and Macho Harris and those would be reaches at 51 IMO.

What about DJ Moore? I was really big on this kid, until I found out he was 5'8

 

[Dalmations202]

If you are referring to the team's specific board that already ranks the teams wishes according to need...yes, I agree.

If it is a general draft board based on best player regardless of positon, then no...no team does that. But I'm pretty sure you mean the team's board--which already biases based on team needs.

Again, no way if you have an overall board with all players regardless of positon ranked that you would take a RB *assume no need for RB) ranked 10th ahead of a ILB ranked 11th. It would be moronic. But again, I'm sure you did not mean that.

Exactly... the need is calculated when making up the board. They just need to stick to the team board.

 

[big dog cowboy]

OL, DL or legit OLB pass rusher.

 

[sonnyboy]

At least releasing Owens increases our chances of actually filling a need with the BPA.

 

[Cowboyz88]

Respectfully, I have to disagree.

Let's say that a RB with top-10 grade miraculously falls to 51. Now, no doubt, we're loaded at RB, but in the big-picture, Choice was a 4th round pick with a much lower draft grade in his class. So theoretically, you've improved an already stacked position.

I understand that evaluations get screwed up all the time, and Choice has proven that he can play in the NFL, no doubt, but if you can add theoretically better talent to the position, you do so.

Then, you can flip Choice for a pick which was better than his actual draft position. Who knows? Perhaps you could get a second round pick in the next years draft.

BPA!

Most people subscribe to the theory that the best move is to always draft the BPA. Maybe in some circumstances, but not all. What if our draft board shows the BPA when it comes time for us to make our pick is a RB. Do you draft an RB just because he's considered the BPA???? Hell no. We don't need a RB. It would be a wasted pick. Same thing for a TE. We should draft the BPA that is available for several positions that we need, but not one that won't see the field. We need an ILB, DE and/or Nose, safety(s), WR (maybe), and OL. Those are the only positions we should consider with our first 2-3 picks. We have to address these positions.

 

[jterrell]

Robiskie could very well be gone by 51, however, I do think there is a chance he is available. I definitely wouldn't say it is a guarantee he is gone, im not asking for crabtree lol.

Robiskie may have had the best "overall" combine of any Wr, he will be gone.

Teams loved him in interviews and he blew expectations out of the water for his drills.